ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Feed-in Tariff Scheme

Glyn Davies: How many households he estimates will be taking part in the feed-in tariff scheme by 2015 following implementation of his reforms.

Edward Davey: We now estimate that, thanks to our reforms, there will be nearly 1 million installations under the FITs scheme by 2014-15, compared with only 350,000 under the old scheme. Final numbers will of course depend on future technology costs and market growth. As for household share, 97% of current installations are classified as domestic, and it is likely that the majority will continue to fall into that category.

Glyn Davies: The feed-in tariff regime, as recently reformed by the Secretary of State, strikes a fair balance between those who install solar PV and the consumer who meets the cost. It will result in far more installations and it will be more popular. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in a democracy, striking that balance in achieving his renewal energy targets and the consequent support of the people should always be his objective?

Edward Davey: I think I can agree with that. My hon. Friend is right to say that our reforms will boost solar power, help more families and reduce costs in consumer bills.

David Hanson: The way in which this has been handled has been a bit of a disaster. I accept that the Minister has made some changes, but they have been detrimental to the overall confidence in the scheme. Putting that to one side for a moment, may I ask him to look seriously at enabling bigger entities such as community centres, schools and other community facilities to benefit from the scheme, to provide a kick-start over and above that given to the householders who participate in it?

Edward Davey: In our proposals, smaller community projects will benefit from the decision to apply only the lower aggregated tariff to generators with more than 25 installations. We are now consulting on a definition of “community”
	and on how that could be used, including a possible tariff guarantee process and a higher rate for community-owned multi-installations, compared with commercial ones. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that that type of community approach was not in the old scheme.

Climate Change

Peter Lilley: What assessment he has made of the procedures adopted by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for its fifth assessment report.

Gregory Barker: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently revised its procedures in response to an independent review by the InterAcademy Council. The revisions address the key recommendations of the review and put the IPCC in a stronger position to prepare its fifth assessment report, but there is absolutely no room for complacency.

Peter Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer, which none the less remains complacent. When the InterAcademy Council reported, it proposed radical reforms that would
	“fundamentally reform IPCC’s management structure while enhancing its ability to conduct an authoritative assessment”,
	and criticised IPCC authors for reporting
	“high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence.”
	Most of the InterAcademy Council’s recommendations have been rejected, however. Why are the Government not pressing for them to be implemented?

Gregory Barker: My right hon. Friend will know that, as a result of the reform procedures, an executive committee has been formed and a new conflict of interest policy has been created. The communications strategy has also been elaborated on much more strongly. I accept that this is by no means perfect, but we now have much greater faith in the IPCC and we look forward to seeing its fifth report.

Energy Prices

Jim Cunningham: What assessment he has made of recent trends in energy prices.

Charles Hendry: The Department of Energy and Climate Change publishes estimates of retail energy prices in our “Quarterly Energy Prices” publication. In general, in line with wholesale costs, most prices have gone up in recent years. However, domestic gas and electricity prices have recently both been cut by just over 2%, although prices will still be up by about 15% for gas and 8% for electricity compared with a year earlier.

Jim Cunningham: Is the Minister aware of the Big Switch campaign to reduce the energy bills of thousands of people through collective purchasing, and does he support it?

Charles Hendry: We most certainly do. No one in the House has done more for collective purchasing than my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State. This is a trend that we are very keen to encourage, as it will help consumers dramatically by enabling them to switch effectively. It will form an important part of a functioning market.

Mark Pawsey: Industries using large amounts of energy—such as Cemex, which manufactures cement in Rugby—are concerned about the relatively high energy prices here compared with other parts of the world. Will the Minister update the House on the steps being taken to ensure that the energy prices paid by British industry remain competitive?

Charles Hendry: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, which is relevant to Members on both sides of the House. What the Chancellor announced before Christmas was a package of about £250 million to support energy-intensive industries. More detail is being published this week, and there is a call for evidence so that we can see exactly what support is required for which industries.

Michael Weir: It is not just gas and electricity prices that are rising, as those off grid who use refined oil as a home fuel are having a bad time of it. Given the increasing concentration in that market, has the Minister given any thought to making direct contact with the suppliers to see whether they will identify and offer assistance to vulnerable groups within their client base?

Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. The Office of Fair Trading looked into this market last year. It was evident in the previous winter that the system had not worked as well as it should have done. We are seeing increasing centralisation of ownership. The OFT has said that it is willing to look again at examples of market failure, and it has asked Members of Parliament to submit evidence to it of where that might be happening.

Nuclear Power

Michael Connarty: When he expects energy companies to secure investment for new nuclear power stations.

Edward Davey: The timing of investment decisions in new nuclear is a commercial matter. The Government are encouraging investment in new nuclear through a range of actions, including its proposals on electricity market reform. The Government have also committed to working with relevant developers to enable early investment decisions to progress to timetable, including those required ahead of electricity market reform implementation.

Michael Connarty: I thank the Secretary of State for that tortuous and absolutely uninformed answer. As secretary of the nuclear industry all-party group, I strongly support this industry, but the problem is that progress has been stalled for some time as it would appear that there has been not much talking and no
	action. The Government have to do more, because we are seeing the resources in this industry and the commitments to investment and technology going elsewhere and not coming to the UK as we hoped when we started to think sensibly about using this very low-carbon source of energy.

Edward Davey: I have to say that I am extremely surprised by what the hon. Gentleman has said, given the Labour party’s record on this issue, as it dithered and delayed for all its time in office. I do not recognise the situation he describes. Three consortia are putting forward proposals for 16 GW of new nuclear. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that people are investing serious money in this industry and that we are making real progress.

Priti Patel: May I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new role as Secretary of State? How confident is he that Britain will possess the world-class skills necessary to create a thriving UK nuclear industry?

Edward Davey: I am very confident. When I joined the Prime Minister for the Anglo-French summit in Paris recently, we were signatory to 12 commercial agreements, which included agreements with further education colleges that will be helping with that supply chain. However, it is not only FE colleges that will be involved, as there are supply chain improvements for training British employees in this new industry all over the country.

Mark Durkan: Apart from the wider policy issues arising from the Government’s attempting to skew investment towards nuclear through the carbon price floor, has the Secretary of State been able to consider the particularly adverse implications in the context of investment for energy in Northern Ireland, given the serious implications stemming from the single electricity market there.

Edward Davey: I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The carbon price floor is important if we want to move to a low-carbon future, to which I am completely committed. We understand the impact of the carbon price floor on energy-intensive industries. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) is talking with his colleagues in Northern Ireland to try to mitigate those issues.

Bob Blackman: Clearly, Labour Members forget that they dillied and dallied on nuclear power for 13 years. Following the UK-French summit, what action is my right hon. Friend taking to accelerate putting base load nuclear electricity into our grid, which is of course the cleanest form of energy we can have?

Edward Davey: I am continuing the policies set out by my predecessor, who gave strong support for that. I have to tell my hon. Friend that when I was reading my brief on this issue, I had only one worry: the design of many of these new nuclear reactors is called European pressurised reactors, and I know that Europe can create pressures and get reactions in this House—but I hope that on this occasion, we can unite.

Tom Greatrex: Is the Secretary of State aware of the concern that if Areva were to win the contract to build the reactor at Wylfa, the supply chain work may not be likely to go to UK companies? Given the comments in the Business Secretary’s confidential letter to the Prime Minister, which received some publicity earlier this week, what do the Government intend to do to maximise the opportunities for UK firms in the supply chain by encouraging contractors to buy where they build?

Edward Davey: The Government have been focusing on this with great intensity from the Prime Minister down. Indeed, when we held discussions with our French colleagues and EDF, we made it clear that we expected there to be British involvement in the supply chain, and that is beginning to happen. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the many agreements that were signed in Paris, including a ground-breaking £400 million deal on nuclear projects between Rolls-Royce and Areva.

Energy Bills

Charlie Elphicke: What steps he is taking to lower consumer energy bills.

Edward Davey: First, we are directly helping about 2 million vulnerable households with their bills through the warm home discount scheme, and many more households are benefiting from subsidised energy efficiency measures under the carbon emissions reduction target scheme. Secondly, later this year the green deal and the energy company obligation will provide energy efficiency measures at no up-front cost to households. Thirdly, we are looking to help consumers get better prices by harnessing their collective purchasing power.

Charlie Elphicke: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. On consumer energy bills, does he agree that it is wrong in principle to finance carbon commitments on the back of the poor, which was the policy of the previous Government, and that we need a more imaginative way forward?

Edward Davey: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am a liberal, but I strongly believe that collective action can help solve some of society’s ills. That is why I promoted collective purchase and switching as consumer affairs Minister and am continuing to do so as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. It is a shame that the party of Keir Hardie and Aneurin Bevan forgot the power of collective action in its 13 years in government.

Luciana Berger: It is interesting that the Secretary of State referred to the CERT and Warm Front schemes, which Labour introduced and the Government are scrapping. I welcome today’s announcement on funding for green deal training, however. It is a good first step towards delivering the apprenticeship scheme that a Labour amendment added to the Energy Bill. Yesterday, however, DECC released figures showing that 7 million homes still need cavity wall insulation, yet the Government impact assessment for the ECO shows that under the green deal cavity wall insulations are set to plummet by 67% next year. At our
	last question time, I warned that that will lead to a loss of 3,000 jobs. What is the Secretary of State going to do to ensure that these jobs can be safeguarded?

Edward Davey: The green deal and the ECO are extremely good proposals. They replace proposals that had a place, but which were not as effective as our proposals will be—[Interruption]—because our proposals are in a package and we have a range of other regulations to help on energy efficiency. We will conduct another impact assessment to show how beneficial our measures are for jobs and the industries concerned.

Gordon Birtwistle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the project in Burnley to clad hundreds of Calico Homes, which is funded by British Gas, Calico and this Government, is the right way forward as it will save money, keep the houses warmer in winter, keep energy bills down and help achieve the aim of having green energy?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is a huge champion of energy efficiency in his constituency, and he is absolutely right. It is the ECO scheme that is making such policies possible. As a result of such measures, we can move on to solid-wall insulation, which for too long has been a poor second cousin.

Graham Stringer: AF Consult estimates that huge savings could be made by changing the energy mix away from windmills. Why does the Energy Secretary not truly dash for gas and utilise the huge shale gas resources that are in Lancashire?

Edward Davey: We need to balance a range of priorities in energy policy, including energy security, affordable bills and tackling climate change. That is why this Government have a portfolio approach to energy generation. We are looking at low-carbon technologies, including wind power, carbon capture and storage, and new nuclear.

Energy Market

Simon Hughes: What steps he is taking to promote competition in the energy market.

Charles Hendry: We are working with Ofgem to deliver clearer bills and simpler tariffs, to help consumers engage effectively in the energy market. We have cut red tape for small suppliers to help them compete, and we are looking at Ofgem’s recently published proposals to increase liquidity in the wholesale market.

Simon Hughes: When Ministers and I were in opposition and Labour was in power, we spent much of our time trying to get the Labour Government to make sure energy companies understood the simple principle that when energy prices went up they were justified in increasing prices to our constituents, but when those prices went down they should also bring their prices down for our constituents. Will the Minister assure us that the Government will force Ofgem and the energy companies to understand the rule that consumers must benefit when prices go down, just as they are penalised when they go up?

Charles Hendry: Ofgem is already working on this issue. Indeed, its proposals for much greater clarity and for a much simpler range of tariffs are a core part of achieving in this area. In the course of that, it will ensure that consumers find it much less confusing to switch and can see whether they are getting a better deal, and that is a very important part of making this market work properly.

Alan Whitehead: Does the Minister have a timetable for the agreement on who will be the counter-party for the contracts for difference under the proposals for electricity market reform? If not, how will he resolve the issue in time for legislation to be put before this House?

Charles Hendry: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we published a technical update for the market reform proposals before Christmas, which set out how we would work with companies that need to make final investment decisions this year to help them identify the strike price under the market reform proposals. We recognise that legislation needs to go through Parliament and we are looking to achieve that in the next Session, but we are also clear about the fact that early decision makers need to have that clarity and we have committed to making sure they have it.

Caroline Flint: Clearly, electricity market reform must improve competition in the energy market. The Minister told the Select Committee that
	“we need to get legislation through as quickly as possible.”
	I suggest to him that the most important thing is not getting it done quickly, but getting it done right. Given this Government’s record of legislative mismanagement, will he today agree to publish after the Queen’s Speech a draft energy Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny, so that this House can ensure that the Government’s proposals deliver the electricity system our country needs?

Charles Hendry: One of the most important things for international investors is for there to be as much cross-party support as is possible in this sector. The Government therefore want an energy Bill that commands support on both sides of the House. We are keen to engage constructively with the right hon. Lady, her shadow team and the Select Committee to examine the options for pre-legislative scrutiny closely and see how we can get the maximum possible support for our measures. I am sure she will understand that we do not want to delay the Bill unduly, but we think that that sort of cross-party support will be an integral part of its success.

Fuel Poverty

Anas Sarwar: What recent forecast he has made of future levels of fuel poverty.

Gregory Barker: Between 2004 and 2009 the number of households in fuel poverty rose from 2 million to 5.5 million across the UK. The Department will publish the 2012 annual report on fuel poverty statistics on 17 May. It will show the actual level of fuel poverty in 2010 for England and the UK, and projected levels for England in 2011 and 2012.

Anas Sarwar: I thank the Minister for that answer. He may be aware that our Labour administration in Glasgow city council has introduced the winter warmth dividend, giving every 80-year-old £100 to help them with their winter fuel bills, so replacing the cut made by this Government to the winter fuel allowance. Will he join me in congratulating Glasgow city council on protecting the most vulnerable and not cutting the support they get, as this Government have?

Gregory Barker: On the contrary, this Government are massively increasing the support for the fuel poor. For example, our warm home discount will reach far more households than the previous Government’s plan. I welcome any measure to help tackle fuel poverty, but, fundamentally, we are going to do that by retrofitting the homes of the fuel poor and improving the fabric of those homes, rather than just handing out more money to try to keep up with ever-rising fossil fuel prices.

Mark Reckless: What may be the impact on fuel poverty of EU regulations closing down coal-generating capacity, for instance with E.ON’s announcement today that the facility at Kingsnorth, in my constituency, will close by March next year?

Gregory Barker: We are not expecting any impact as a result of that. Obviously, there is a constant need for a new generation of technologies to emerge. What we want, both for the fuel poor and for this country’s energy security, is a broad mix of fossil fuels, renewables and nuclear. We think that that is the best route forward.

Luciana Berger: When the previous Labour Government left office, 1 million fewer households were living in fuel poverty than in 1997. The Tory Government have scrapped Warm Front, the carbon emissions reduction target, the community energy saving programme and social tariffs, and they have cut the winter fuel allowance. As a result, the level of fuel poverty has risen from one in five households to one in four. The Minister, who is responsible for tackling climate change, has said that the energy company obligation would deliver far more for the fuel poor than any measure introduced by Labour, yet the Government’s own figures show that, in a best-case scenario, the ECO will lift just half a million homes out of fuel poverty. With energy bills at record levels, why are the Government turning their back on the fuel poor?

Gregory Barker: It is ridiculous for the hon. Lady to pretend that the number of fuel poor did not rise from 2004 to 2009 from 2 million to 5.5 million. It would be good, on this really important subject, if, rather than trying to score cheap partisan points, we could build a new consensus. We are bringing forward some very important measures on fuel poverty and we are determined to really make a difference.

Incinerators

John Pugh: What recent assessment he has made of the use of incineration for power and heat generation.

Gregory Barker: There is no place for old-style incinerators in our future energy mix but there are an increasing number of new energy-from-waste technologies being deployed that offer real potential for local low-carbon and environmentally friendly generation of electricity and heat.

John Pugh: Does the Minister not accept that we face a huge educational task in persuading people—both the public and politicians—that the modern combined heat and power plants differ from the dioxin-belching monstrosities of the past?

Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been a sea change in safety and environmental standards as well as in the type of technologies that can now be deployed. These smaller, new technologies often have a role to play, particularly in our vision of an ambitious roll-out of decentralised energies and of communities taking more responsibility for and greater ownership of their own energy-generating assets.

Barry Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that there are some very good energy-from-waste operations at the moment that, with a little co-operation with local authorities and a little help from the Government, could be converted into combined heat and power to heat local communities, hospitals and town centres? That is what happens in Sheffield and it could happen in many other places.

Gregory Barker: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I have visited the site in Sheffield and it is a beacon of what can be done and of the benefit that we can get from such assets. We want to see a big expansion in CHP, not forgetting the hierarchy that means that before considering energy from waste, we should prevent, reuse, recycle and recover. We think CHP has a big future and will bring forward further proposals to encourage it.

Feed-in Tariffs

Cathy Jamieson: What recent representations he has received on his decision to reduce the feed-in tariff for solar PV.

Gregory Barker: I met 25 stakeholders when the FITs consultation was launched on 9 February and I intend to meet them again on 27 March. As of 5 March, we have received 18 written responses to the consultation on the solar PV cost control mechanism and six to the consultation on non-PV technologies and scheme administration issues.

Cathy Jamieson: I thank the Minister for that answer, but small companies in my constituency are still contacting me about the chaos over the ending of the feed-in tariff scheme and they want to know what the Minister will do to listen to their comments and to work with small businesses as well as some of the larger stakeholders to find the way forward.

Gregory Barker: The hon. Lady will know that there has been a significant level of deployment—contrary to some of the scare stories and predictions that were circulating before Christmas—in January and February and that continues. We have now put forward a consultation document that is gathering broad support for putting in place a sustainable framework that will result in a bigger scheme that offers better value. As a result, there will be far more PV under our reform proposals than there was under Labour’s very expensive scheme. We are keen to involve small and medium-sized businesses as much as possible.

Stephen Mosley: Earlier this week I was in Berlin with the Select Committee on Science and Technology to look at the energy infrastructure in Germany. Will the Minister confirm that Germany is proposing to cut the feed-in tariff rates to below the UK level with just two weeks’ notice?

Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The German cuts are now going further and faster than those that we are proposing. We think that solar is a very dynamic technology that is up to the challenge. If costs continue to come down and it becomes competitive with fossil fuels by the middle of the decade, as we believe it might, we could see 22 GW of solar capacity installed by 2020.

Onshore Wind Energy

Andrew Turner: What his policy is on encouraging onshore wind energy production.

Chris Heaton-Harris: What his policy is on encouraging onshore wind energy production.

Edward Davey: A responsible energy policy for this country is one that includes onshore wind. Well-sited wind farms, offering the benefits to local communities that we are introducing, are one of the cheapest ways of cutting our dependence on imported gas over the next decade and keeping emissions down.

Andrew Turner: I thank the Minister for that answer. Is he aware of the new blade tip generation technology, which is more efficient than traditional turbines and can be installed with no lasting adverse effect on the countryside? Will he support moves to manufacture this innovative form of renewable energy on the Isle of Wight in support of the eco island initiative?

Edward Davey: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. It is good to see examples of the economic benefits that wind power can bring. We are aware of companies developing new technologies for turbines, including for small-scale wind power generation such as the blade tip technology he cites. The support we provide for wind power generation in the UK will encourage use of appropriately sited and efficient wind developments.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Can the Secretary of State confirm that if we add the number of existing turbines to those going through the planning system, we have enough in
	place to hit his Department’s 2020 targets? If that is the case, does that not suggest that the level of subsidy for these things is too high?

Edward Davey: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He and I may disagree about the significance of onshore wind, but I appreciate the measured way in which he has engaged with me and the Prime Minister on this issue. I can tell him that 5 GW of onshore wind power generation has already been built, that there is planning consent for a further 6 GW and that planning permission is being sought for 7 GW-worth of projects, only some of which will be approved. Given that the ambition was for 13 GW, most of the development that the country needs is indeed already on the table. As for subsidy, the subsidy levels go down as costs go down, and we are proposing a 10% reduction in subsidies for onshore wind.

Dennis Skinner: The previous Energy Secretary opposed the idea of limiting how close wind farms could be to homes and residential areas, as is the case in Scotland. What is this Energy Secretary’s view?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman will know that, as my right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State said, this is a planning issue that needs to be determined at the local level.

Jim Shannon: Given the news the Minister has just given regarding the progression of energy production from onshore wind, can he assure us that wildlife migratory routes will not be inhibited by the establishment and development of wind energy production? I want to make sure that wildlife will not be harmed by energy provision and development measures.

Edward Davey: I know that environmental impact assessments have to be done and I believe that those sorts of assurances have to be given.

Andrew George: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing his new position? He said that wind is the most efficient form of renewable energy, but what will the Government do to ensure that communities benefit from new wind energy projects?

Edward Davey: First, we need to make sure that communities are listened to during the planning process, and the planning reforms will do that. We are committed to ensuring that local communities capture the full economic benefit from hosting renewable energy projects, particularly the retention of all the business rates that these installations pay.

Electricity Cables

Daniel Poulter: What discussions his Department has had with National Grid on the undergrounding of new electricity cables.

Charles Hendry: The Department and National Grid have discussed National Grid’s new approach to network infrastructure, which emphasises mitigating
	visual impacts. The Department has arranged for National Grid to fund an independent study comparing the costs of undergrounding and overhead lines. We also revised the text of the relevant national policy statement to require greater consideration of alternative approaches before it was approved by Parliament.

Daniel Poulter: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. I am sure he is aware that increasingly robust evidence has been gathered by the Institute of Engineering and Technology that the cost of undergrounding pylons is a lot less than National Grid has previously suggested. May we count on his support and the support of the Government to ensure that pressure is brought to bear on National Grid to underground pylons and not ruin the beautiful British countryside?

Charles Hendry: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I think National Grid was very pleased to commission that report from the IET to get independent analysis of the costs. I know that there is a significant multiple from undergrounding or taking cables sub-sea, but we have required, through the national policy statement, that mitigation aspects and alternative approaches be looked at to preserve our precious landscape.

Energy Bills

Richard Graham: What assessment he has made of the likely effects on household energy bills of changes to the feed-in tariff scheme.

Gregory Barker: We estimate that our new, reformed scheme, upon which we are currently consulting, will add just £8 to the average household energy bill in 2020. That is around £50 less than FITs would have cost if we had continued with the previous policy. Obviously, there is a great deal of uncertainty in these numbers, which depend on future technology costs and market growth.

Richard Graham: Hard-pressed constituents of mine in Gloucester will be grateful for the Minister’s answer. Does he think there are lessons to be learned from Germany in terms of the total amount of energy consumed by households? If we replicated the amounts used in Germany, that would heavily reduce bills in this country.

Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend is right. In Germany, although electricity prices are higher, not least because of the support for renewables, bills are broadly comparable with those in the UK because domestic energy efficiency is much better. That is exactly the sort of transformation that we are determined to drive forward in the UK with the launch of the green deal later this year.

Energy Costs

Nigel Mills: What steps his Department is taking to reduce energy costs.

Charles Hendry: We are helping around 2 million vulnerable households through the warm home discount scheme and many more households through other schemes. The green deal and the energy company obligation will
	provide energy efficiency measures at no up-front cost. We are also looking to help consumers obtain better prices by harnessing their collective purchasing power.
	To help businesses with their energy costs, the Chancellor announced a package of measures worth £250 million over the current spending review period.

Nigel Mills: I am grateful for that answer. Will the Minister join me in welcoming Rural Action Derbyshire’s bulk-buying scheme for domestic heating oil, which aims to bring communities together to deliver savings to heating oil customers?

Charles Hendry: I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in supporting this particular scheme. It is exactly the sort of scheme that we want to see coming forward. It gives consumers greater buying power; it helps them to negotiate a better price; it is good for them and it is good for the market.

Barry Gardiner: A reduction in energy costs is one way of addressing fuel poverty, but with rising world commodity prices it is unlikely to be seen in the future. The other way of addressing fuel poverty might be to make direct payments to the more vulnerable, but again, given the financial situation, that is highly unlikely. Therefore, energy efficiency is critical. Will the Government look at making energy efficiency measures compulsory and putting them in place across the board?

Charles Hendry: We have made enormous strides on this through the green deal. We have recognised that in the United Kingdom our gas prices are the lowest in the EU15 and our electricity prices are about the third lowest in the EU15, but the total bill is much higher because our homes and businesses are very energy inefficient. The green deal was the first comprehensive measure introduced by Government to address this and to be rolled out across the housing stock. I know that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the ambition that we are setting out, and we are determined to make this fundamental change.

Nuclear Power

Aidan Burley: What discussions he has had with private contractors on the construction of the next generation of nuclear power stations.

Charles Hendry: My Department regularly meets companies from different parts of the supply chain to discuss the next generation of nuclear power stations and how they can contribute to meeting our energy security and carbon reduction goals.
	The UK Government are committed to ensuring that UK companies are in a position to compete for the business opportunities that new nuclear can provide, both in the UK and globally.

Aidan Burley: My constituents will welcome the news that Ministers are working with the supply chain and nuclear reactor vendors to help create and support a globally competitive supply chain. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the majority of the UK’s
	new nuclear plants are constructed, manufactured and engineered by British companies? Will he pledge to include socio-economic factors in the invitations to tender, as so many other European countries do in theirs?

Charles Hendry: We are keen to learn to be more like the French and to understand how we can do that more effectively in these matters. We work closely with companies such as Areva and Westinghouse, which have assured us that they have a real commitment to developing supply chains here in the United Kingdom. We are working with local enterprise partnerships to ensure that the skills base is there. The partnership between Areva and Rolls-Royce is a fantastic example of how we can develop that in the United Kingdom and then those skills can be taken to the rest of the world.

Paul Flynn: This time last year there were 54 nuclear reactors operating in Japan. Today there are three. Does not the anniversary of the terrible accident there last year convince the Minister that nuclear is the most fragile, unreliable power source?

Charles Hendry: No single source of energy is capable of withstanding the force of a multiple earthquake and tsunami. Those were very exceptional circumstances. We asked our regulator, who is well respected, to look into this and see what lessons we could learn, and we came to a different conclusion. We understand why the Japanese Government came to the conclusion that they did, but we see nuclear as an important part of a low-carbon future. We are therefore keen to take this forward, but we will never compromise on safety standards.

Green Investment Bank

Pauline Latham: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on the Green investment bank.

Edward Davey: I have regular meetings with Cabinet colleagues to discuss a wide range of issues. My Department works closely with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on the Green investment bank, given the bank’s potential to play a major role in catalysing private sector investment in the low-carbon economy.

Pauline Latham: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer and welcome him to his new post. I have been championing Derby as a potential location for the Green investment bank, because we have had one or two knocks to our confidence in Derby and lost some jobs. [Hon. Members: “Too late.”] If I am too late—I have not heard the announcement—I would like to suggest that the Secretary of State works with his colleagues to see what other investments the Government can make in Derby to return confidence to the area.

Edward Davey: I know that my hon. Friend is a real champion for Derby and is trying to get investment into the city, but I must tell her and the House that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has announced that the headquarters of the Green investment bank will be located in Edinburgh, with its main transactions team based in the London branch.

Chi Onwurah: In his discussions with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, did the Secretary of State make an assessment of the number of nuclear power stations, green chemicals plants, wind farms or tidal power generators that would be located in the City of London, and does that account for his decision to locate the Green investment bank there?

Edward Davey: I think that the hon. Lady needs to read the Secretary of State’s written ministerial statement, which sets out his reasoning in detail. We spent a long time looking into the matter because there were 32 proposals and we wanted to do them justice. I refer her to the statement.

Julian Smith: Many people in Yorkshire who worked really hard to attract the Green investment bank to Leeds will be gutted by this decision. To compensate for this bad news, will the Secretary of State and his Department commit to giving the Yorkshire carbon capture and storage cluster as much support as possible over the coming months?

Edward Davey: I know how hard my hon. Friend works to promote investment in his constituency and I am sorry that he is disappointed, but he will realise, as I am sure the whole House will, that the Green investment bank will be investing across the country and, therefore, driving our low-carbon economy.

Charles Kennedy: May I unambiguously and warmly welcome—it will be welcome across the whole of Scotland—the decision to site the Green investment bank in Edinburgh? Does the Secretary of State agree that this will also give a further shot in the arm to other sites in Scotland, such as Kishorn in my constituency, that are pursuing renewable energy initiatives with great employment prospects? I congratulate the Government. This is a very good start for my right hon. Friend in his new post.

Edward Davey: I thank my right hon. Friend for his welcome. He is right. Edinburgh is an established centre for financial services and it couples that skill with a thriving green sector. That is why I believe my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has chosen it. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy) has been a champion of investment for Kishorn point and welcome the planned investment for redeveloping the point.

Low-carbon Technologies

Nicholas Dakin: What recent assessment he has made of the level of investment in low-carbon technologies in the UK.

Gregory Barker: In February, Ernst and Young upgraded the UK to fifth in the world for overall attractiveness for renewable energy investment. Cleantech Group estimated UK venture capital investment in clean technology in 2011 to be around $566 million, ranking us third in the world after the United States
	and China. We have forecast that 4 GW of renewable electricity will become operational in the coming year, which represents a doubling of installed capacity since May 2011.

Nicholas Dakin: I thank the Minister for his reply. What measures are the Government taking to ensure that the UK supply chain for low-carbon technologies is properly backed and developed?

Gregory Barker: In advance of the establishment of the Green investment bank, Green Investment UK will, thanks to the Chancellor’s Budget, invest up to £775 million in the green economy in the next financial year alone. This will be a huge boost, along with the other proactive measures that the coalition is taking to boost green growth.

Matthew Offord: What assessment has the Department made of the sustainability of the woody biomass subsidy, particularly given the availability of virgin UK timber?

Gregory Barker: I take my hon. Friend’s point extremely seriously, as do my colleagues. That is why we have a programme looking at the sustainability of the supply chain. I would be happy to welcome him to the Department to meet our officials so that we can fully address any concerns he might have on the matter.

Kelvin Hopkins: The best low-carbon technology is probably insulation. A recent report on energy conservation suggests that we could save the economy more than £1 trillion by investing in insulation instead of in nuclear power. Has the Minister looked at that report?

Gregory Barker: I agreed with every word, almost until the end of the hon. Gentleman’s question. He is right that energy efficiency, including insulation, is an absolute no-brainer. We have failed to do as much as possible in the past. With the green deal and the energy company obligation, we hope to transform the energy efficiency of homes and businesses in the UK.

Energy Costs

Jim McGovern: What plans his Department has to reduce energy costs for (a) low-income and (b) other consumers.

Charles Hendry: We are committed to helping people, especially those in low-income, vulnerable households, to heat their homes more affordably. We are helping about 2 million low-income households through the warm home discount scheme this year. In October, we announced the joint “Check, Switch, Insulate to Save” campaign to help all consumers save money this winter. We are also looking to help consumers harness their collective purchasing power.

Jim McGovern: I thank the Minister for his response. As the real value of wages stagnates and unemployment increases, energy prices are a real problem for people in my constituency, particularly those on low incomes. Dundee Labour party has pledged to negotiate a 20% reduction
	in energy prices if it is elected to lead the council in May. I ask the Government to take the lead from Dundee Labour party and do everything that they can to reduce energy prices, so that those on low incomes do not have to make the awful choice between eating and heating.

Charles Hendry: I would be more than happy to have a meeting with the people from the hon. Gentleman’s constituency in Dundee to understand more about the scheme that they are putting forward. As he will be aware, last year gas prices were, on average, 30% higher worldwide than the year before and oil prices peaked at their highest ever level in sterling just last week. Global prices have been going up and we therefore need to find new, imaginative ways of helping consumers. Such collective purchasing agreements can be an important way of reassuring people and of ensuring that they get the best deal. I would be delighted to meet those people.

Mr Speaker: Patience rewarded; I call Mr Robert Halfon.

Robert Halfon: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Government define fuel poverty as a person spending a tenth of their income on fuel. Motorists in Harlow who are on average earnings spend a tenth of their income on petrol and diesel costs. Does that not mean that motorists on low and average earnings are facing fuel poverty? Will the Government do everything that they can to continue down the path set by the Chancellor in the last Budget, and reduce the cost of petrol and diesel at the pumps?

Charles Hendry: My hon. Friend makes a point that will resonate across the House. Members of Parliament from every constituency, be they urban or rural, are very concerned about this issue. As I said, oil prices peaked at their highest ever levels in sterling last week. We are therefore facing a global issue. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been listening actively to what is being expressed on this issue and will make further announcements in the Budget.

Topical Questions

Nadhim Zahawi: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Edward Davey: This is my first departmental Question Time as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. Since my appointment in February, I have been rather busy, following on from the successes of my predecessor. I have opened the world’s largest offshore wind farm off the coast of Cumbria, launched the energy efficiency deployment office to help the Government deliver their energy efficiency policies, and published reforms to the feed-in tariffs scheme. In addition, the Department of Energy and Climate Change and Ofgem have published a report on cutting the costs of offshore wind connection.

Nadhim Zahawi: I welcome my right hon. Friend. Will he confirm that the Government are committed to exploring the full range of possible renewable technologies
	—marine, tidal, geothermal and so on—as part of a portfolio approach to a mixed energy economy, which plays to the strengths of this country both economically and environmentally?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is right that this country is blessed with huge potential for renewable industries. We can therefore seek a transition to the low-carbon economy, support energy security and build a green economy, which will benefit businesses, create jobs and increase our exports to the world.

Caroline Flint: The Labour Government committed £60 million to supporting manufacturing for offshore wind in this country. In October 2010, the Government promised to continue our scheme. Eighteen months on, when there are reports that manufacturers are holding off on investing in offshore wind in Britain because of uncertainty about Government policy, why has only one grant been awarded and why does 98% of the budget remain unspent?

Edward Davey: The Government are supporting the wind turbine industry in this country. It was under the last Government that a factory closed, the Vestas factory in the Isle of Wight. The right hon. Lady needs to examine our record, which is very strong. We are seeing more and more investment in the industry.

Caroline Flint: I asked a pretty straightforward question. The Government have signed up to a £60 million budget, and so far only one grant has been provided. Why is that the case, and why does 98% of the budget remain unspent?
	Twice this week I have asked the Government why they are failing to back British businesses, and twice they have had no answer. After his leaked memo, we now know that even the Business Secretary agrees with me. On Monday, I said:
	“We have to do more to develop our supply chain and to support manufacturing in this country”.—[Official Report, 5 March 2012; Vol. 541, c. 597.]
	On Tuesday, the Business Secretary said that
	“there is as yet little attention given to supply chain issues.”
	That is a straight quotation from his memo. Is not the truth that the Government’s mixed messages and failure to get behind British businesses mean that jobs and investment in industries that could come to this country are now going overseas?

Edward Davey: The right hon. Lady is wrong on this point. Many companies from around the world are looking to the UK as the premier place to invest in the offshore wind industry. She is talking down great places such as Hartlepool that want to attract investment in the industry. We are looking at the supply chain, and we have set up the offshore wind developers forum, which has pledged that 50% or more of the work in the supply chain will be in Britain.

Nigel Mills: Will the Secretary of State update the House on measures to support the training of installers, assessors and suppliers of green deal home improvements?

Edward Davey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, because I have today announced £3.5 million to train green deal assessors, delivering on the Deputy Prime Minister’s announcement last March of the creation of 1,000 green deal apprenticeships. That money will help hundreds of people gear up for the green deal and ensure that the scheme is a real success on the ground. I have also announced today £10 million of innovation funding to improve the energy efficiency of non-domestic buildings.

Paul Flynn: Will the Minister congratulate the firm of Mabey Bridge in Chepstow, which was started last year? It has just doubled its work force to 200 and has a full order book for 35 wind power towers. Will he take this opportunity to denounce the doubters on his Back Benches and give a clarion call of support for wind as a job-rich form of energy that is British, eternal and clean?

Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman gives a perfect answer to the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). That is an example of a company investing to take advantage of the opportunities that exist. I was delighted to be able to open the factory extension last year and to meet the company again last week. It is doing a tremendous job, and it is a great British success story.

Chris White: In Warwickshire, we are fortunate to have many people who are seeking to design community-based renewable energy solutions, ranging from solar panels on public buildings to hydroelectric power. In the run-up to the Budget, will the Minister ask the Treasury to consider extending community investment tax relief to matters such as investment in community energy, which delivers both social and economic benefits? That could provide a significant incentive for people to invest in such schemes.

Gregory Barker: I thank my hon. Friend. He, like me, is a great champion of community energy, but I am afraid he is tempting me down the path of forecasting the Budget, which is a somewhat career-limiting move for junior Ministers. I can say, however, that we have established a community energy contact group to discuss those issues, about which he knows I am particularly passionate.

Julie Hilling: Does the Secretary of State support WWF’s earth hour on 31 March, when across the world, everyone will be encouraged to switch off lights for one hour to highlight the issue of climate change? What will he do to promote earth hour?

Edward Davey: That is a very good initiative, and I can certainly commit my Department to supporting it.

Elizabeth Truss: Many of my constituents are concerned about the number of proposals for biomass plants that are springing up in an area of high-value agricultural production. In these times of concern about food security, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that we do not use high-value crops in such plants?

Edward Davey: The Government will not allow the growth of bio-energy to compromise food security. There are many other feedstocks for bio-energy, including wastes. Crops for energy can be grown in ways that do not compete with food, for example, through using marginal land. We want our farmers to share the economic opportunities offered by bio-energy as well as realising the benefits of clean, secure energy for the country.

Linda Riordan: Why will just 3% of families at risk of fuel poverty this year get the help to which they are entitled from the warm home discount scheme?

Gregory Barker: I do not recognise the figure that the hon. Lady gave. The warm home discount scheme is proving a real success, but it is just one in a suite of policies that aim to help the poorest and most vulnerable families. However, if she has new evidence, I would be happy to meet her to discuss it.

Alun Cairns: The replacement of the levy exemption certificate with the carbon support price will have an adverse effect on industrial combined heat and power plants, which often feed energy-intensive industries such as Dow Corning in my constituency. What action is the Minister taking to overcome that, and will he offer reassurance that CHP plants will not be worse off under the new regime?

Gregory Barker: We are determined to support CHP, which we see as having an important future in our energy mix. As announced in last year’s Budget, the Chancellor will set out how CHP will be treated under the carbon price floor in the Budget this month. That will form part of our wider strategic aim of reducing emissions in industry, which we will explore further through our forthcoming heat strategy.

Cathy Jamieson: I have previously raised in the Chamber the number of people who are on prepayment arrangements and expensive tariffs. The Minister assured me that that would be monitored. May we have an update on how many people have now switched to direct debits?

Gregory Barker: More information is coming in on that all the time. I had a meeting with Ofgem and suppliers recently. I am keen to harvest that information and I am happy to share it with the hon. Lady and the rest of the House as soon as more becomes available.

Anne McIntosh: Where are we with nuclear waste? If nuclear power is essential to deliver low-carbon economies, where is the Department in its programme and level of investment for disposing of spent nuclear fuel?

Charles Hendry: My hon. Friend raises one of the most critical issues at the heart of the nuclear debate. The Government have taken forward significantly the programme for the long-term deep disposal system for our legacy waste in this country. We are trying to advance that programme by at least a decade and discussions are continuing about that. We also recently
	published the waste arrangements for any new nuclear operators, with which they will have to comply for their plants to go forward.

Anne McGuire: The main source of biomass in the UK is wood, and the renewables obligation is distorting the competitiveness on price. Having had very good meetings with the Minister, I recently met representatives of the industry, who tell me that the issue is now critical. What progress has been made?

Charles Hendry: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, just as we are determined to ensure that biomass does not compromise food security, we also want to ensure that biomass activities can have other good uses, for example, in wood panelling, furniture and building. There is a very strong industry, particularly in Scotland and the north of England, and we have been pleased to have good engagement with the right hon. Lady and the industry. I want to reassure her that we will continue with that because we want an outcome that benefits all parties.

Dominic Raab: In response to a freedom of information request, the Department confirmed that seven documents were prepared for the Copenhagen summit that show the cost to the UK of a 30% cut in EU emissions. When he was Energy Secretary, the Leader of the Opposition made the ludicrous claim that disclosure would damage international relations, and he vetoed it. Given the Minister’s personal commitment to a more transparent approach under FOI, will he publish the seven documents so that taxpayers know the costs that they would bear?

Gregory Barker: I will certainly look into the issue that my hon. Friend raises about Copenhagen. If it is possible, I will publish the documents.

Iain Wright: Will the Secretary of State update the House about the memory stick that was lost in India, which contained plans for Hartlepool nuclear power station? What has been done about the matter?

Charles Hendry: Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that we have looked into the matter. Any loss of a memory stick is a matter of concern, but we have looked at the information that was contained in it, and it was not critical. Although the loss is inconvenient and irresponsible, it poses no threat to national security.

David Amess: As the promoter of the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, which tasked the Government with eliminating fuel poverty, I know that my hon. Friend will share my disappointment that the previous Labour Government failed to do that. Now that we have the report, will he act on the Macmillan recommendations about vulnerable cancer patients?

Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend is a huge champion of fuel poverty—[ Laughter ] —and is absolutely right to be proud of his record in addressing that issue. I should have said that he is a champion of action on fuel poverty. He also is absolutely right to raise concerns about the treatment of vulnerable customers, including those with cancer and other potentially fatal illnesses. I would be happy to meet him to discuss that further.

Alan Whitehead: The Secretary of State has today informed us where the headquarters of the Green investment bank will be, but has he also broken the news to Edinburgh that it will host not a bank but a cash-limited fund until at least 2017? Does he intend to go to the Treasury on behalf of Edinburgh to seek permission for the green investment fund to become a bank substantially before that date?

Edward Davey: I am surprised the hon. Gentleman talks down the bank. It has £3 billion to spend in this Parliament and will leverage in billions more of private sector investment. That is good news for our economy and for the transition to the low-carbon economy.

Therese Coffey: I was concerned to read the scaremongering in The Guardian today about how nuclear power station sites are at risk of flooding. My understanding is that there has been no cover-up of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report on flooding, but we know that the Department of Energy and Climate Change has taken action through the Weightman report to say that coastal defences must be maintained. Does the Minister agree that such scaremongering is not helpful to residents in Suffolk?

Charles Hendry: I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance on this. We will not compromise on safety in any respect with regard to new nuclear power stations. That is an integral part of the national policy statements and the planning process. We have the most effective and toughest regulatory system anywhere in the world and one of the most highly regarded international inspectors is leading the process. We will not compromise on safety in those areas.

Barry Gardiner: Green economic development will be the central focus of the United Nations conference in Rio in June. Given that, which Ministers will attend? Now that the Brazilian Government have changed the date to 15 June in deference to the Queen’s diamond jubilee, will the Prime Minister himself attend?

Edward Davey: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is leading on our preparations for Rio. I know she will want other senior Ministers to accompany her.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr Speaker: Just before we move on to the business question, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2012
	Live Music Act 2012
	Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012
	Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims (Amendment) Act 2012
	Welfare Reform Act 2012
	Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012
	Bank of Ireland (UK) plc Act 2012

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

George Young: The business for the week commencing 12 March will be:
	Monday 12 march—Motions relating to the Backbench Business Committee, a Committee on Standards and a Committee of Privileges, the code of conduct, all-party groups and scrutiny of certain draft orders.
	Tuesday 13 march—Opposition day (un-allotted day) (half day). There will be a debate on a motion relating to the Health and Social Care Bill. This debate will arise on an Opposition motion. Followed by consideration of opposed private business nominated by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
	Wednesday 14 march—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill.
	Thursday 15 march—Motion relating to the introduction of charging for Big Ben Clock Tower tours followed by a motion relating to reform of the common fisheries policy. The subject for these debates has been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 19 March will include:
	Monday 19 march—Consideration of Lords amendments followed by a debate on a motion relating to the waste water national policy statement.
	Tuesday 20 march—Consideration of Lords amendments.
	Wednesday 21 march—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
	Thursday 22 march—Continuation of the Budget debate.
	Friday 23 march—Continuation of the Budget debate.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 26 March will include:
	Monday 26 march—Conclusion of the Budget debate.
	Tuesday 27 march—Motion relating to assisting dying. The subject for this debate has been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 22 March 2012 will be:
	Thursday 22 march—Debate on services for young people.

Angela Eagle: This week, the chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life criticised the Prime Minister’s failure to ask the independent adviser on ministers’ interests to investigate allegations made against the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), the then Defence Secretary—a course of action that the Opposition urged him to take at the time. Does the Leader of the House agree that since the office was established it has become clear that it would be far simpler and more transparent if the independent adviser could initiate an investigation? Will the Leader of the House find time for an urgent debate on the ministerial
	code so that we can determine what Parliament should do when the Prime Minister himself breaks the ministerial code?
	The Institute for Fiscal Studies states that the Government’s proposals to cut child benefit are “fundamentally unfair”. For some families a pay rise will actually result in a significant cut in household income. Is this the Prime Minister’s definition of fairness? This is a mess entirely of the Government’s own making. They rushed out a press release for cheap headlines ahead of the Tory party conference without bothering to look at the detail, and it is hard-working families who will pay the price. This week, the Opposition forced a parliamentary debate, but we did not get an answer from Treasury Ministers, so will the Government now find time for a debate on what on earth they mean by “fairness”?
	That would give them the opportunity to explain why, from April, they are penalising almost 500,000 children with draconian cuts to child tax credits. At the moment, because of tax credits, a couple where one parent works and the other looks after the children are £59 a week better off. It pays to work. From April, they will be £14 a week better off on the dole—this despite the Government’s claims that they want to make work pay. Will the Leader of the House explain how that is fair?
	May I wish everyone a happy international women’s day and welcome the debate later today, for which I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel)? Does the Leader of the House agree that the Justice Secretary should clear his diary to attend it? The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill will halve the number of women entitled to legal aid in domestic violence cases. The Opposition have set out proposals to reduce the legal aid bill without penalising the most vulnerable. Will the Leader of the House explain how the Government’s proposals are fair?
	One person who does not think it fair is the junior Education Minister, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), who spends her day voting for Government cuts and then goes delivering leaflets in the evening asking, “Who can you trust to stop the cuts?” The answer is clearly not the Liberal Democrats. Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on Government communications to the electorate to enable her to explain herself?
	A letter from the Business Secretary to the Prime Minister this week mysteriously found its way into the public domain. The Business Secretary thinks that the Government lack a “compelling vision”. Middle-income families are being hit by cuts to child benefit. Hard-working families are being penalised by child tax cuts. Women are being shut out of the legal system. The Business Secretary is right. That is not a compelling vision for Britain. Is it any wonder that the Prime Minister’s guru, Steve Hilton, the man who authored the statement,
	“Let sunshine win the day”,
	has fled to California in search of it?
	This week the Prime Minister’s top aide leaves the country; last week the Deputy Prime Minister’s chief economic adviser resigned to go travelling the world. Can the Leader of the House therefore find time for a debate on why so many senior Government advisers are fleeing the country?
	The Business Secretary said he thought his letter was “helpful”, and I suppose it was—in the sense that it was helpful for the Business Secretary’s party profile ahead of the Liberal Democrat spring conference. May I also be helpful to the Leader of the House? He knows I always try to be. Every time I have raised the Health and Social Care Bill, he has cited parts of it that he thinks have merit. Is he not concerned that doctors, nurses, royal colleges, public health organisations, patients, GP groups and now even the Cabinet Secretary think the Bill should be dropped? Instead of proceeding with this disastrous Bill, here is a helpful suggestion: just drop it and start again.

George Young: Let me start with the ministerial code, which sets out that if there is an alleged breach, the Cabinet Secretary can make some initial investigations. That is exactly what happened in this case. As a result of those initial investigations, the facts were put into the public domain, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) resigned and there was therefore no need to refer the matter to the independent adviser—something that, I note in passing, the previous Prime Minister did only once. The shadow Leader of the House will also know that the Public Administration Committee is currently doing an inquiry into the ministerial code. We await the outcome of that inquiry with interest.
	On the issue of child benefit, we debated it on Monday —we had a half-day Opposition day—and it featured regularly in the exchanges at Treasury questions on Tuesday. Our view is quite clear: it is not fair that somebody on £20,000 a year should pay, through their tax, for the child benefit of someone who might be earning five times as much. That is the view that we put forward in that debate, and we are very clear that those who are better off should make a contribution to paying down the financial deficit. The same issue was also raised in relation to child tax credit in the debate on Monday, and again at Treasury questions, and we made our position quite clear. To put it in the broader context of universal credit, even couples working 16 hours a week will be some £36 a week better off when universal credit is introduced next year.
	On international women’s day, the hon. Lady may have seen that we have announced a new offence of stalking—an amendment has been tabled to the Protection of Freedoms Bill. On Monday we had a written ministerial statement about domestic violence disclosure—the so-called Clare’s law. We will take no lectures from Labour Members about women. They did nothing about the glass ceiling or the differential. I welcome the debate that is about to take place on international women’s day.
	On legal aid, the hon. Lady will know that the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill is in another place. Legal aid in this country, at some £39 a head, is way above what is spent in France or Spain, at some £5 a head. The Labour party consulted on reducing legal aid, but never got round to doing it. However, we are protecting the most vulnerable members of society in the legal aid scheme.
	On the letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, I am not sure whether the BBC has changed its definition of “breaking news”, but this was, in fact, originally reported several weeks ago in a newspaper. However, I think the
	whole country was much more interested in the news on Tuesday that Nissan was bringing an additional 2,000 jobs to the north-east—a clear vindication of the Government’s decision to put support for manufacturing at the heart of our economic strategy.
	I am responsible for many things; I am not responsible for leaflets that get distributed in the London borough of Brent. However, it is certainly the case that had the Labour party been re-elected at the last election, it would have had to make some cuts. Labour would not have been able to maintain the investment in, for example, the numbers of police on the front line.
	So far as Steve Hilton is concerned, yes, he is going; but the good news is that he is coming back. Also, he is not leaving next week, and I pay tribute to the number of creative new ideas that he has injected into the first two years of the coalition Government.
	Finally, on a serious note, the whole House will want to honour the memory of two previous Leaders of the House, Robert Carr and Norman St John-Stevas, who died recently. They were not only effective politicians of their day, but fine parliamentarians who left an enduring mark on this place, and the resurgence that the House is currently enjoying, both in the Chamber and on the Committee corridor, would not have been possible without the changes that they put in place all those years before.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. A very large number of colleagues, as usual, are seeking to catch my eye, but I remind the House that there is a statement to follow and important business, significantly subscribed, thereafter, which means that there is a premium upon brevity. We will be led in that important mission of brevity by Karen Bradley.

Karen Bradley: Last week I was honoured to join Falco UK, a manufacturing business based in Staffordshire Moorlands, in celebrating 20 years of existence and in looking forward to a further 20 years-plus. It is a great proponent of apprenticeships and training, so will the Leader of the House find time for a debate about small manufacturing businesses and their contribution to apprenticeships?

George Young: I understand that in my constituency the firm makes bicycle racks, in which I have a professional interest, and I applaud not only what it does in making bicycle racks but, as importantly, what it is doing for apprenticeships. There are more than 400,000 apprenticeships this year, and as I have said before we all have a role to play in encouraging employers in our constituencies to do exactly what my hon. Friend is doing in hers, and in encouraging young people who are currently unemployed to take up the apprenticeships that become available, financed in part by the Government.

Natascha Engel: The Leader of the House has announced a debate on Monday about the operation of the Backbench Business Committee, motions for which were placed on the Order Paper on Tuesday night. He will be aware that today is the closing date in a call for evidence by the Procedure Committee, which is also reviewing the Backbench Business Committee’s operation. The Backbench Committee itself is producing a report imminently on its operations over the past year
	and a half, so why have the Government chosen to hold a debate now about its operation, rather than waiting so that the House might be much better informed and come to its conclusions just a little later?

George Young: I very much welcome the review of the Backbench Business Committee, which is being undertaken by the Procedure Committee, and of course we will want to respond to its report in due course. The answer to the question that the hon. Lady poses, “Why are we debating the matter on Monday rather than waiting for the report?”, is set out in the Procedure Committee’s Ninth report of Session 2010/12. It made several recommendations for changes to the Backbench Business Committee, and the Government in their response said:
	“The Government propose to allow time for consideration of proposals to this effect towards the end of the current Session.”
	In other words, if Members want to make changes to take effect at the beginning of the next Session, they cannot wait for the report of the Procedure Committee, because that will come too late. That is why we are putting the motions before the House on Monday. It will be for the House to decide what to do with them, but if we want to make changes, we are going to have to do so quite soon; we cannot wait for the Procedure Committee’s report.

Edward Timpson: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate about this week’s announcement of £330 million in efficiency savings, which the Government are now able to spend in the NHS on new units and equipment, including at Crewe’s Leighton hospital, whose bid, which I was pleased to support, successfully secured £25.2 million for new operating theatres, an intensive care unit, a labour suite and a CT scanner, much to the delight of clinical staff?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I understand spent four days working in the hospital and gives the bid his personal support. That is a good example of how one can reinvest savings in front-line services, and by reinvesting the money that we have saved we are able to put more than £330 million into projects that will help more than 2.5 million patients per year. My hon. Friend has given a very good example of how that assistance is feeding through.

Alan Meale: I am sure that the Leader of the House will join me in paying tribute to our brave fallen, who have died over the past couple of days in Afghanistan, but at the same time I am sure that he is appalled by the actions in Benghazi, with the wanton destruction of many of the war graves in our cemeteries. Will he have a word with his colleagues at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to ensure that the strongest representations are made to the Libyan Government, and will he in the near future find time for a debate about that most important work?

George Young: The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to a very serious matter. It is important that the damage is repaired immediately, and I pay tribute to the work of the Commonwealth War Graves
	Commission. Representations have been made to the Libyan Government expressing our dismay at what has happened and urging them to take every step to prevent any recurrence. I cannot promise an early debate, but it might be an appropriate subject for a debate on the Adjournment commending the work that is done by the commission.

James Morris: Many small manufacturers in my constituency are in the good position of running at full capacity to fulfil their order books. May we have a debate in Government time on what the Government are doing to provide such businesses with credit in order for them to continue to expand, export and grow?

George Young: I commend the work that is going on in my hon. Friend’s constituency and the full order books that he mentioned. There will be an opportunity after the Budget statement to debate the assistance that we are giving to manufacturing that flows from the advanced manufacturing growth review that was published a year ago. There will also be an opportunity to debate the issue of credit available through the banks, perhaps against the background of the national loans guarantee scheme that is shortly to come into effect, making £20 billion available to the banks for onward lending at preferential rates of interest to businesses such as those in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

Gerald Kaufman: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 2826, which stands in my name?
	[That this House condemns New Look Windows of Manchester for taking money from clients to carry out work on their property, for botching the job in a way that makes matters worse than they were before, including creating a fire hazard and for keeping their hands on the money they were paid in advance for their work; and warns potential customers to have nothing to do with this dodgy firm.]
	The EDM exposes the swindling activities of New Look Windows, a company in Manchester which, when engaged by a constituent to repair his windows, not only made a mess of it but created a fire hazard where none existed before and has kept the money that it demanded be paid in advance. Will the Leader of the House condemn this disgraceful behaviour and refer it to the appropriate Minister for action?

George Young: I have now seen early-day motion 2826 on New Look Windows. I understand the concern that the right hon. Gentleman has expressed, as has a fellow Manchester Member. I will draw the issue to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Skills. The trading standards officer at the local authority might also take an interest in the matter to see whether any appropriate action could be taken at that level.

Andrew Jones: May we have a debate about the impact of the Schmallenberg virus and the way that it is hitting farming incomes? The virus is affecting sheep, and in the current lambing season a proportion of lambs are being stillborn
	or born deformed. This is very relevant in my constituency and right across north Yorkshire, as we have many hill farms, and while the virus is currently only in the south of England, it is spreading very rapidly.

George Young: I understand the concern expressed by my hon. Friend, which may be shared by other Members with farming constituencies. The matter was raised during the exchanges with Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers a week ago. All the evidence suggests that the disease was brought into the UK from infected midges blown across the Channel; we have seen no evidence that it came from imported livestock. We are closely tracking the disease and will continue to work with partners across Europe and the UK to develop our knowledge of it.

Barry Sheerman: Yesterday the whole House was shocked and stunned to hear of the death of six soldiers—young men—in Afghanistan. We are particularly hard hit in Yorkshire, where five of those young men came from; three were from my own constituency of Huddersfield. Is it time for us to have a serious, thoughtful debate about what is going on in Afghanistan? The House will know that I am not one to say that we should cut and run, because those young men gave their lives for a great cause, but it is time for mature reflection at this stage.

George Young: I understand the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman, which I know are shared in all parts of the House. Today the Foreign Secretary is giving evidence before a Select Committee, and I have no doubt that he will be cross-questioned on these issues. There will also be an opportunity to raise them during the regular quarterly statements on Afghanistan by the Foreign Secretary or the Secretary of State for Defence. There may be an opportunity for a more general debate on foreign affairs if the Backbench Business Committee can find time for one.

Marcus Jones: This week we have seen the fantastic news that Nissan is creating 2,000 jobs in the north-east and that Jaguar will be building the new XF Sportbrake in the west midlands. Both those companies have had support from the Government’s regional growth fund. May we have a debate on the effectiveness of the regional growth fund?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because Labour Members have made some derogatory remarks about the effectiveness of the regional growth fund, and we have just heard at first hand from him about its benefits, with the extra jobs that it is creating in his constituency and the assistance that it is giving to the motor manufacturing industry, which is now a major manufacturing export industry and part of our strategy of rebalancing the economy so that we are less dependent on financial services.

Nigel Dodds: The tragic news from Afghanistan that we heard yesterday highlights the need for continuing support to the families of servicemen and servicewomen, who do such a tremendous job on behalf of our country. May we soon have a debate
	about the military covenant and what support is being given to servicemen and women and their families throughout all parts of the United Kingdom, because, as the Leader of the House will know, in some devolved regions the level of support varies from what happens in England?

George Young: I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s concern. He will know that we have now enshrined in statute an obligation to report annually on the military covenant, and it would be appropriate to include the issues that he raises in that review. I will see whether it is possible to have a debate on the military covenant, given that we have to review it every year, and see whether we can reflect on the regional disparities.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: While I would defend to the hilt anybody’s right to peaceful protest, a permanent encampment is a different matter altogether. The City authorities have now cleared the Occupy London site around St Paul’s, and the sites around Parliament square have largely been cleared. Today it looks fantastic as it is being prepared with flagpoles, but one or two eyesores remain on the pavements, which are the responsibility of Westminster City council. Will my right hon. Friend join me in urging the council to make sure that they are cleared as soon as possible?

Mr Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is looking for either a statement or a debate on the matter.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Of course.

George Young: Following the passage of the legislation that we introduced last year, Westminster City council took action to remove the encampments. I think that there is an injunction that protects one residual encampment and that the case is being heard later this month. If the council is successful, as it hopes to be, that remaining encampment will be removed, and then we can begin to restore Parliament square to the glory that many of us remember—a place that can be enjoyed by tourists and visitors—and remove some of the problems that Members and staff have encountered with the noise that used to emanate from the site, which I hope that we have now dealt with.

Luciana Berger: My 10-year-old constituent, Joseph Duffy, has cerebral palsy, epilepsy and learning difficulties. He was recently reassessed for disability living allowance, which he has received from the age of two. On Tuesday, his parents were informed that as a result of that reassessment he will lose his higher-rate mobility and higher-rate care components and instead receive nothing. The Motability car that the family depend on will be taken away at the end of the month. May we please have an urgent debate on the way in which benefit reassessments are being carried out when they lead to shockingly bad decisions such as this one?

George Young: Of course I understand the distress of Joseph Duffy’s family. We have not changed the rules concerning DLA, and there is an opportunity for her constituents to appeal against the assessment if they believe that it is unfair. We have asked for an independent assessment of the work capability assessments, and we
	are implementing the recommendations of that independent review as they come forward. The answer to the hon. Lady is that if she believes that an injustice has been done, there is an opportunity to appeal against it.

Julian Smith: May we have a debate about the defiance of the Highways Agency in opposing a decision by the excellent roads Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), to reinstate two brown signs on the A1 upgrade at Masham? The agency is quoting a cost of tens of thousands of pounds for those brown signs, which clearly the community and businesses in the local area cannot afford.

George Young: I will make some inquiries of the Secretary of State for Transport. We all know that many sites in our constituencies depend on brown signs to generate traffic, and that when those signs are removed or damaged, that has an impact on the destinations concerned. I will pursue the matter with my right hon. Friend to see whether it is indeed the case that the Highways Agency is defying something that it should not be defying and to see whether we can get these brown signs restored.

Jim Sheridan: Can we have a debate on the merits of bonus payments to public sector workers? The Mayor of London has agreed bonus payments for London tube drivers working during the Olympics, but he has failed to agree similar terms for other public sector and, indeed, emergency workers. Given that the Government have overall control of taxpayers’ money, how does that unfairness fit into their fairness agenda?

George Young: That sounds to me like a matter for the Mayor of London. We believe in devolving decision making, and it is a matter for the Lord Mayor to decide how he distributes bonuses to the staff for whom he is responsible—

Chris Bryant: The Lord Mayor?

George Young: The Mayor. The Mayor of London; I am sorry. The Government believe that there is a role for bonuses in the public sector in order to reward performance, but that they should be on an acceptable scale. I am sure that the Mayor of London—Boris, who I hope will be re-elected—will be tuned into this exchange and that he will respond to the hon. Gentleman’s concern in due course.

Iain Stewart: May I make an early request for a debate to mark the centenary of the birth of Alan Turing, the celebrated Bletchley Park code-breaker and pioneer of modern computing, in order to celebrate his achievements and to consider whether it would be appropriate to grant him a pardon for the so-called crime of which he was convicted?

George Young: We all applaud the work that Alan Turing did at Bletchley Park in my hon. Friend’s constituency during the war. I think I am right in saying that my hon. Friend also paid tribute to Alan Turing in
	his maiden speech and referred to an apology that had been made by the previous Government for what had happened to him. I understand that an application for a royal prerogative of mercy was made on the basis that the offence should not have existed but, sadly, one cannot give a royal prerogative on those grounds. I will have another look at this, but I am not sure that there is a case for intervention by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Justice. That could happen only if fresh evidence came to light to show that the conviction should not have taken place. The argument that the offence should not have existed in the first place is not normally a ground for prerogative.

Bill Esterson: Developers in my constituency are queuing up to build on green-belt land and on urban green spaces, encouraged by the Government’s new planning framework and supported by Tory and Lib Dem councillors as recently as in yesterday’s planning committee meeting. My constituents want to know whether they have any chance of defending themselves against such developments. Please may we have a debate on the Government’s planning reforms, to discuss the changes that they have made following the consultation?

George Young: There is a specific protection in the national planning policy framework for the green belt, so I am not quite sure where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. We will be making a statement on this matter in due course, and announcing our conclusions after the consultation exercise on the NPPF.

Brandon Lewis: The New Anglia enterprise zone is set to open in the next few weeks, and it aims to create 2,000 new jobs by 2015, growing to almost 15,000 in its lifetime. This is a clear example of a Government policy that is creating real new jobs in the private sector. May we have a debate to highlight the opportunities that will be created by the enterprise zones across the country?

George Young: I hope that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity in the debate on the Budget to draw attention to the benefits of enterprise zones. We announced some 24 enterprise zones with the specific objective of generating employment in the areas that needed it, and I am delighted to hear of the impact of the EZ in his constituency, and of the extra jobs being created. I hope that many more will be created on the back of the ones already in existence.

John Healey: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Information Tribunal meets today to consider its decision on the Government’s appeal against releasing the risk register for their huge NHS upheaval, which I requested back in November 2010. Will he confirm that, if the Government lose, they will respect the law and release the register? Will he also confirm that the House will not be asked to consider Lords amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill without the benefit of that important information?

George Young: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman an undertaking on that last point, because I do not know when the tribunal will deliver its ruling. The Bill is scheduled to have its Third Reading in another place
	on, I think, 19 March, and we would then hope to deal with it here, so I cannot give him that particular undertaking. I hope that he will understand, however, that it is important for Ministers to be able to consider policy options, and to get frank advice from civil servants on their impact, without those options going into the public domain. We need sufficient space to develop our thinking and our policy options, which is why the Government opposed the right hon. Gentleman’s application. We will have to wait and see what the tribunal ruling comes up with.

Peter Bone: Further to what the excellent Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) said earlier, all Members of the House have received an e-mail from the Procedure Committee asking them to submit their comments on the reform of the Backbench Business Committee by today. However, the very issues that we have been asked to comment on are those in the motion that the Government have tabled for debate on Monday. This is going back to the bad old days of the Executive overruling Select Committees. Whatever wishy-washy answer I get, this is not acceptable. Will the Leader of the House agree not to bring forward that motion on Monday?

George Young: I am not sure that there is any point in my rising and coming to the Dispatch Box, as my hon. Friend has already discounted my reply. I must point out to him that, on 8 February, I made it absolutely clear that
	“the Government believe that it would be appropriate for the House to address the anomaly whereby members of the Backbench Business Committee other than the Chair…are elected by the House as a whole rather than by Members of the political party to which they belong before the next elections of members. The Government propose to allow time for consideration of proposals to this effect towards the end of the current Session.”
	That is exactly what we are doing. It will then be a matter for the House to decide, in the light of the debate on Monday, whether it wishes to adopt the proposal on the Order Paper. I note that my hon. Friend has tabled an amendment to the motion indicating a contrary view.

Chris Bryant: I do not know what the Leader of the House knows about the contents of the Budget that lead him to believe that we shall need a debate on assisted dying the next day. May I ask him about the Backbench Business Committee debates that we have had in which the Government have let motions go through, because they knew that they would lose a vote on them, but have then gone on to do absolutely nothing about them? So far, we have had five, including one on prisoners’ voting rights, one on circus animals and, last night, one on the death of Sergei Magnitsky. Is there a means whereby the House can ensure that, when it has agreed a motion, the Government must follow up on it?

George Young: The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice) released a statement on circus animals last week, making it clear how we were responding to the vote in the House last year. The hon. Gentleman will have seen what the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member
	for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) said on behalf of the Government at the Dispatch Box in response to the motion on Sergei Magnitsky last night. It is of course always open to the Backbench Business Committee, if it feels that the action has not been substantive enough, to re-table a motion with another vote. In response to what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his question, I must point out that it was not the Government’s decision to debate assisted dying on the last day, but it is a serious subject on which many Members will welcome a debate.

Charlie Elphicke: May we have a debate on business investment in the UK? Last week, I visited Megger, a high-tech manufacturing and export powerhouse in Dover that makes diagnostic testing instruments. I saw at first hand the massive investment that it has put into its manufacturing process, and it struck me that we could create more jobs, more productivity and more economic success by further boosting business investment in the UK.

George Young: I am delighted to hear of the success of the firm in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Medical technology is an area in which we have a competitive advantage and in which we are making progress in the export market. I hope that it will be possible to have further debates, on the back of the Budget statement, on exports and on the steps that the Government are taking to enable such firms to flourish and create more jobs.

Ian Murray: My constituent Mrs Abdulgader’s three children were abducted in Libya by their estranged father during the uprising there. She has all the legal documentation necessary to have them returned, but the Foreign Office says that there are no consular personnel on the ground and that the legal institutions in Libya have yet to be re-established. May we have a statement in the House on what the UK Government are doing to support those Libyan institutions, so that Mrs Abdulgader’s children can be returned to Edinburgh?

George Young: I am very sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman’s constituent’s children have been abducted; I know what a serious issue that is. I will make inquiries in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to see what representations we are able to make to the Libyan Administration, and what powers are available to them to track down the children and bring them back to this country. I will ask the appropriate Minister in the FCO to contact the hon. Gentleman.

Henry Smith: Earlier this week, I met US Treasury officials in Washington who share my concern that the SWIFT—Society for the Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication—financial transaction system is still being used by Iranian banks, despite sanctions. May we have a debate on the effective use of the SWIFT system so that we can ensure that countries such as Iran which promote terror are not able to operate under it?

George Young: It is important that the financial sanctions agreed against Iran are not undermined or subverted in any way. I will ask my right hon. Friends at
	the Treasury to take up my hon. Friend’s point and see whether there is any action we can take to ensure that the appropriate UN resolutions are enforced.

Gerry Sutcliffe: May we have a debate on the definition of Britishness? The Leader of the House may be aware of a Channel 4 documentary with the inflammatory title “Make Bradford British”. It did not succeed in the way the programme makers wanted the programme to move forward. It would be interesting to have a debate on this topic, perhaps accompanied by a survey of Members beforehand, to find out whether any of us would pass the current citizenship test.

George Young: A test brought in by Labour Members, I might add. I would welcome such a debate on Britishness. I cannot promise Government time for it, but given that a writ was moved in Bradford yesterday for a by-election, I am sure that there will be adequate opportunities during the campaign to debate those sorts of issues. Indeed, that campaign might have started a few minutes ago.

Chris Skidmore: The South Gloucestershire Labour group claimed to be in favour of a council tax freeze, but when it came to the vote, it behaved in exactly the opposite way and voted it down. It claimed to be in favour of protecting the Kingswood green belt, but when it came to the vote, it failed to back it, potentially causing uncertainty and havoc within the local core strategy. This is not only irresponsible; it is misleading to the public. At a time when we want to empower local communities, may we have a debate on the accountability and responsibility of local councillors to the public?

George Young: The local councillors in my hon. Friend’s constituency are accountable to the electorate, which I am sure will have taken note of the points he has made. Let me say in passing that local councillors are subject to the Nolan principles of high standards in public life, and if they do not live up to those high standards, they should expect appropriate sanctions through the ballot box.

Kevin Brennan: Now that the Information Commissioner has reported, may we have a statement from the Education Secretary on the private e-mails he sent, using his alter ego of “Mrs Blurt”, to two advisers in his Department, discussing Government business and trying to avoid the Freedom of Information Act? The Prime Minister said that sunshine is the best disinfectant; when are the Government going to start acting that way?

George Young: The hon. Gentleman might have seen the statement put out by the Department for Education at the weekend, cleared by the permanent secretary, which said that special advisers were not required to maintain records of deleted e-mails. All civil servants routinely delete or archive e-mails, taking account of their nature and content. I am not surprised that that is what happened in this particular case. On the broader
	issue, the Cabinet Office will issue advice shortly in the light of what the Information Commissioner announced in December.

Alun Cairns: The European Parliament has called for lower mobile data roaming charges—shortly to be discussed at the European Council. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement in the Chamber by the relevant Minister so that we can understand the Government’s latest position on this issue?

George Young: My hon. Friend has made such a statement redundant, as he has been successful in securing a debate on Wednesday 14 March in Westminster Hall, to which the Government will respond. He will know that we have the interests of consumers and competition uppermost in mind in the negotiations. We have two basic principles: that wholesale price caps should not be set below cost, and that there should be a sufficient margin between wholesale and retail price caps to enable competition. I look forward to my hon. Friend’s debate.

Jonathan Reynolds: May we have a debate on the Government’s e-petitions system—an excellent initiative aimed at keeping the Government in touch with the British public? The Leader of the House will know that the e-petition, “Drop the Health Bill”, which was organised by my constituent Dr Kailash Chand OBE, has not resulted in the debate that he wanted, despite its now reaching 171,000 signatures. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will refer me to the Backbench Business Committee, but the Prime Minister promised debates on these things, and this is another promise broken. What people want to know is this: what is the point of having this system if the Government will not listen to the British public?

George Young: I do not think anyone could say that we have not had adequate debate on the Health and Social Care Bill in recent weeks, and there will of course be a further opportunity when we consider Lords amendments to it. As the hon. Gentleman implied, this is for the Backbench Business Committee, and I quite understand why it took the view that the matter had already been debated adequately, and therefore chose other subjects. On this particular occasion, I am happy to endorse the decision of the Backbench Business Committee.

Priti Patel: From early April, owners of pleasure boats using red diesel, including those along the beautiful Essex coastline, will no longer be able to take their vessels outside UK waters due to a new diktat from Europe. May we have a debate about the considerable practical and economic difficulties that these boat owners will face, so that we can listen to their concerns rather than simply comply with more regulation from Europe?

George Young: This is a complex issue. My understanding is that the use of red diesel with full duty paid to propel pleasure craft is a UK procedure permitted within UK waters, and that it is not illegal to use red diesel outside UK waters. However, if a pleasure craft with red diesel is used outside UK waters, its owners need to be aware that it will be subject to national legislation, including any restrictions or prohibitions of
	the member state in whose territorial waters it is being used. That is perhaps an incentive to stay within UK territorial waters.

David Wright: Thousands of jobs in Telford are linked to Government IT contracts, notably that of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. May we have a statement—oral or written—on the future structure of contracts for IT support services for HMRC and other Departments?

George Young: I believe that this matter falls to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, who is in charge of IT procurement contracts, for which we are seeking to get better value for money. Cabinet Office Ministers will be at the Dispatch Box on Wednesday 21 March, when there will be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to pursue this matter in greater detail.

David Amess: May we have a debate on why there is no Easter Adjournment debate? I had thought that these debates were set in stone, and I really think that the Easter break of three weeks, during which time we will be unable to raise important constituency matters on the Floor of the House, is unacceptable.

George Young: The concept of having a debate on why there is no debate is a novel one. I know that my hon. Friend is a regular participant in the pre-recess Adjournment debates, but the Government have made the last day before the Easter recess available to the Backbench Business Committee, which weighed the option of using it in the traditional way that my hon. Friend prefers against the alternative of providing time for a debate on assisted dying. The Backbench Business Committee has done what it is perfectly entitled to do, and decided to have a debate not on pre-recess issues, but on assisted dying. That is a matter for the Backbench Business Committee—a consequence of the Government’s giving away powers to it, enfranchising the Back Benchers.

Paul Flynn: The main justification given yesterday by Ministers for our continuing presence in Afghanistan was that it protected the United Kingdom against Taliban terrorist attacks. May we have a debate in which the Government can present to the House and the nation their evidence of Taliban plans for terrorist attacks on the United Kingdom, so that we can ensure that the country knows that there is some good reason for our continuing presence in Afghanistan rather than its being for the convenience of politicians? Our brave troops should not remain in Afghanistan for a day longer than necessary.

George Young: Afghanistan was a failed state in which al-Qaeda was allowed to flourish and launch deadly attacks against citizens of other countries, including this one. We have an interest in ensuring that Afghanistan is no longer a failed state, but one that can police and look after itself. That is why we are there. There are many opportunities to cross-examine Ministers on this subject. As I said a few moments ago, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee as we speak.

Andrew Turner: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the wholly inadequate way in which the Boundary Commission has published responses to the public consultation this week? More than 5,000 responses for the south-east region are included, but there is no way for people to be able to identify which of them are about, for instance, the Isle of Wight rather than somewhere else. Can we do something about that?

George Young: As an MP in the same region, I understand the issue my hon. Friend raises, but the Boundary Commission for England is independent of the Government, so we cannot order it to do anything. My understanding is that there would have been some difficulties in doing what my hon. Friend wants, as linking proposals in the way suggested might have prejudiced the second round of consultation. That is why the information was presented in the way that it was.

Anas Sarwar: I am sure the entire House will wish to join me in sending our deepest sympathies to the families of the fallen heroes in Afghanistan of the past few days. I am sure everyone will also wish to join me in utterly condemning the comments of a Scottish political activist who said yesterday that our fallen heroes deserved no sympathy as they are a “bunch of child killers” and that the majority of our servicemen and women are “racist, arrogant, undereducated thugs” who joined the armed forces for the “thrill” of killing human beings. That demonstrates the ugly side of nationalist politics in Scotland. Please may we have an urgent debate on online abuse and hatred? No matter what views we may have about individual interventions overseas, what should never be questioned is the bravery, compassion and heroic service of our young men and women, many of whom, sadly, give the ultimate sacrifice for love of our country.

George Young: The whole House will join the hon. Gentleman in unequivocally condemning those insensitive remarks. They are wholly inappropriate. I do not think we need a debate in the House, as I think the whole House agrees that those comments should never have been made.

Mark Pawsey: I know that the Leader of the House pays close attention to the regional breweries represented in Strangers Bar—as, indeed, do you, Mr Speaker. I am therefore sure that it will not have escaped his attention that, in the middle of an exciting six nations rugby union tournament, the current offer is Webb Ellis bitter, produced by the Wood Farm brewery in my constituency, all of whose beers bear a connection to the game which has its birthplace in my constituency. May we have a debate on the role of breweries in establishing regional identities?

George Young: I approach this matter with some caution, as the last time beers were raised at business questions, that got more coverage than any subject I have discussed in two years and resulted in the removal of a beer from the Strangers Bar. I understand that subsequently sales of that particular brew took off, and that the coverage it received was about the best thing that ever happened to that beer, whose name I dare not mention.
	We look forward to hosting both the rugby league world cup in 2013 and the rugby union world cup in 2015. I pay tribute to the Webb Ellis ale brewed in Rugby, and also to the good work of rugby clubs in towns and cities across the country both from a sporting and a tourism perspective.

Barry Gardiner: Over the past decade, some 300,000 children have been kidnapped and turned into child soldiers by the Lord’s Resistance Army in Africa, led by Joseph Kony, who is the International Criminal Court’s No. 1 target for capture. As the Leader of the House will know, young people around the world have dedicated 20 April to be a day to publicise that fact, calling it Kony 2012, in order to put pressure on Governments to take action to bring that criminal to justice. Will the Leader of the House ensure that a statement is made at about 20 April on what the Government are doing to assist in these efforts?

George Young: I hope that at Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions three days before, on 17 April, there may be an opportunity for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to address this matter, perhaps in topical questions, if the hon. Gentleman is present then. I will forewarn my fellow Ministers in that Department both of the date and the likelihood of this subject being raised.

Bob Blackman: Today is the Jewish festival of Purim and the Hindu festival of Holi. Purim commemorates the deliverance of the Jews from an evil King of Persia—there is, of course, a contemporary parallel with the President of Iran, who wishes to wipe Israel off the map. Holi commemorates the deliverance of Prahlad, whom Holika took into a funeral pyre in an attempt to kill him. However, Holika was consumed by the fire and Vishnu delivered Prahlad to safety. Will my right hon. Friend deliver a message to Hindus and Jews everywhere that this demonstrates the victory of good over evil?

Mr Speaker: Some people might think that the hon. Gentleman has already done that, but I am sure the Leader of the House will be happy to reply.

George Young: Both the Hindu and the Jewish communities are good examples of well-integrated communities that have made a great contribution in business and in commercial and professional life. The House joins them in commemorating and celebrating the two festivals of Purim and Holi.

Denis MacShane: May we have a debate on the resolution of the House that is to be found in column 928 of yesterday’s Hansard? It calls on the Government to bring forward legislative proposals to freeze the assets of Russian officials connected to the death of Sergei Magnitsky and to impose a travel ban, but in yesterday’s debate the Minister made it quite clear that the Government did not have the faintest intention of accepting the resolution. This marks a turning point for the Backbench Business Committee. This was not a Westminster Hall debate or to do with an early-day motion. You, Mr Speaker, were bullied by the Russian ambassador and saw him off with great
	firmity. I want our Foreign Secretary not to be the Kremlin’s stooge, and instead to stand up to it by implementing this resolution of this House of Commons in this matter.

George Young: Well, we have just had a debate on the matter. I am not quite sure whether the right hon. Gentleman wants yet another debate. The House had a debate: there was a motion on the Order Paper, it was carried unanimously and the Government made their position absolutely clear. I do not agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Government proposing to disregard totally that which the House resolved unanimously.

Chris White: The video games industry is a major employer in my constituency—several hundred people in Warwick and Leamington are employed in the sector—but it needs support if it is to continue to thrive. The industry body, TIGA, and a number of Members have been calling for video games tax relief in order to encourage growth and establish a level playing field in respect of international competitors. As the Budget will be delivered soon, will the Leader of the House provide Government time for a debate on video games tax relief, so that we can boost exports and create new jobs?

George Young: I commend my hon. Friend on his ingenious pre-Budget representation to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I will certainly ensure that he is aware of the bid my hon. Friend has just made. I pay tribute to the work of the video games industry, which is another successful industry that is doing well under the coalition Government.

Ian Lucas: Tomorrow morning, I will meet Remploy workers in my constituency who heard yesterday that this Government are taking away their jobs. Will the Leader of the House, whom I believe to be a reasonable man, assist me by enabling me to say to them that the Government will permit a debate in Government time on Remploy, so as to enable the employees and their representatives across the UK to make representations to the Government?

George Young: We had a statement yesterday, as the hon. Gentleman knows as he asked a question. The Government do not plan to have a debate on Remploy, although it is perfectly open to the Opposition to choose Remploy as the subject for debate on an Opposition day—they have one next week. The hon. Gentleman will have heard in yesterday’s exchanges that the last Labour Government closed 28 Remploy offices. He will also know that the policy of switching resources away from financial institutions that lose a lot of money and towards people is supported by the disability organisations. He will know, too, that we have ring-fenced the budget for assisted employment for those with a disability and found an extra £15 million for access to work. The tailored support we are giving to those affected by the current closures far exceeds the support given to those affected by the closures under the last Administration.

Robert Halfon: Following yesterday’s successful fair fuel lobby day when hundreds of motorists lobbied their MPs, may we have a statement on fuel
	prices? Although we acknowledge that, thanks to the Chancellor’s tax cuts, fuel prices are 10p lower than they would otherwise have been, lower earners are still paying a tenth of their income to fill up their family car and small businesses are paying a third of their income on such costs.

George Young: Matters of taxation are matters for the Chancellor, who will shortly be making his Budget statement. I applaud the work that my hon. Friend has done through his e-petition at the end of last year. No doubt because of his eloquence, the increase that was scheduled to be introduced in January has been postponed and the one for August has been cancelled. I am sure that motorists up and down the country are grateful to him for his campaigning zeal, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have heard the representations that he has just made.

Glyn Davies: There is growing concern in my constituency about the impact of high energy prices on the fuel poor and on business competitiveness. Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the impact of onshore wind subsidies for developers on the poorest people in our society and on the competitiveness of British industry?

George Young: We have just had questions to Department of Energy and Climate Change Ministers, where I understand these issues may have been raised. My hon. Friend will know that the subsidy to the wind farms is being reduced. I will pass on to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the points that he has raised, which may be relevant to his Budget statement.

Nigel Mills: Could the Leader of the House find time for a debate on reforming our rotten system for European elections? On three occasions, it has left my constituents, who voted on a closed party list, with an MEP who switched parties halfway through a Parliament and was still allowed to retain the seat—that is a disgraceful situation.

George Young: I hate to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I cannot promise an early debate on the electoral system for the European Parliament. Speaking from memory, I believe that once we had opted out of the old system, whereby we had MEPs for seven or eight constituencies, into the new one, there was no going back. The issue that he has raised is one more for party management than for the House of Commons.

Rail Reform

Justine Greening: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the railways. Our rail network matters—to our quality of our life, our national well-being and our country’s future prosperity. For this Government, it is a simple equation: good transport equals good economics. But, too often, we find ourselves frustrated and disappointed when the cost, punctuality or comfort of rail travel does not come up to scratch. I believe that the Government and the rail industry can and must do more for passengers and taxpayers. Of course, investment has a huge part to play, too. That is why we have been investing in our transport infrastructure, which is one of the best ways to support business, generate growth and create jobs. For rail, that has meant the biggest modernisation programme since the Victorian age, with £18 billion invested in this spending review alone.
	However, it is not enough only to invest in the railways; it is also vital to make sure that they are set up for success. So, today, I am setting out our plans to do precisely that, with the publication of our rail Command Paper, “Reforming our Railways: Putting the Customer First”. I have taken the “Ronseal” approach to the name, as the strategy will do what it says on the tin: put the customer first. The hallmarks of our railway must be high standards and low costs. It must be a railway that offers the best services and the best value. That means a rail network that is efficient, effective and affordable. Nevertheless, in his rail value-for-money study, Sir Roy McNulty concluded that our railways are among the most expensive in Europe, despite the strong and steady growth in the number of passengers using them. Sir Roy identified inefficiencies worth £2.5 billion to £3.5 billion a year—of course, the people picking up the tab for that costly inefficiency are passengers and taxpayers, so reform is long overdue.
	Passengers rightly want to know that we have a plan to end the era of the inflation-busting fares seen over recent years, and taxpayers rightly want to see railway subsidies reduced to help us to tackle the fiscal deficit. My message to everyone today is clear: the days of spiralling and unjustified rail costs are coming to an end. Under this Government, the rail industry will be able to compete for future investment only if its long-term cost issues are addressed and if it can earn the right to grow. I am pleased to say that Network Rail is already due to deliver £1.2 billion of efficiency savings by 2014, with at least a further £600 million expected by 2019. But, as Sir Roy so clearly set out, we need to go further. The railway as a whole needs to become less dependent on Government subsidies, which is why we want the industry fully to close the efficiency gap of £3.5 billion per year identified by Sir Roy by 2019. We are about managing and reducing costs, balancing budgets, targeting investment where it can drive long-term growth and jobs, and delivering more capacity and better service for the investment that goes in.
	The time is right for reform. I believe that we are in a good position to build on recent efficiency gains to improve the performance of the industry further and to improve the passenger experience. The programme of work that will decide rail outcomes and funding for the five-year period from 2014 is now well under way, and that sits alongside a period when we will see the biggest
	round of re-franchising since the privatisation of the industry. Both represent a further opportunity to change our railways for the long-term better.
	Today’s Command Paper sets out our ambitions for Britain’s railways, and the agenda for change that both the Government and industry will follow in the months and years ahead. By reforming the industry, we will achieve substantial savings. Those savings will allow us to cut and then abolish above-inflation rises in average regulated fares, and they will ease the burden of the railway on the broader public purse. I believe that, taken together with my decision to limit the most recent increase in regulated fares, that will have a positive long-term impact on household budgets.
	For reform to be really effective, there needs to be closer collaboration between the infrastructure managers—in other words, Network Rail—and those who provide passenger services, which are generally the train operating companies. Only through better joint working will we reduce costs and improve the customer experience. The industry is already pushing for better alignment between track and train. We look forward to the industry bringing forward partnerships that are equipped and incentivised to deliver not just better services, but better value. The rail industry, led by the Rail Delivery Group, has also declared itself willing and able to respond to the strategic and operational challenges that the railway faces. Such leadership across the industry will be essential if we are to get the most out of our reforms.
	Rail franchises will be reformed, with greater transparency on costs and efficiency—again, that is to ensure the best value for fare payers and taxpayers. Franchises will be longer, giving train operators the flexibility they have been asking for—more time to make the biggest investments—to deliver what passengers want, within a sustainable budget. We will also move to a more transparent, modern and flexible approach to fares and ticketing. We are launching a consultation today to take views on how those key aims can be achieved; it is time to bring fares out of the 1970s and into the 21st century. We will expand smart ticketing to give more passengers the kinds of benefits that travellers in the capital already enjoy with Oyster cards. Working with industry, we will roll out smart ticketing across England and Wales, and across different operators, thus increasing convenience for passengers. Smart ticketing is also pivotal to introducing a more flexible system tailored to customers, with a wider choice of tickets and season cards, as we recognise the reality that not all journeys take place five days a week during rush hour.
	If we duck the reform challenge, it will not just be rail users and the public purse that pay the price; ultimately, the rail industry and the wider economy will suffer, too. So we want everyone working in rail, be it management or front-line staff, to help to make these reforms work. By reducing costs and increasing demand—set alongside this Government’s huge investment in railways—there is genuine potential to boost jobs across the industry.
	Of course, it is important to reform governance, too. Network Rail is giving greater decision-making powers to its regional route directors, making it more responsive to local conditions and increasingly focused on day-to-day train operations at the local level. We welcome Network Rail’s efforts to find new and more efficient ways of
	managing its assets, including long-term concessions to third parties for the management of parts of the network. Network Rail is also rightly taking steps to reform corporate governance, including its management incentives package, so that it is more accountable to passengers and freight customers. I would also like to welcome its sensible decision, to be announced shortly, voluntarily to appoint a public interest director, who will ensure that the concerns of taxpayers are fully reflected at board level and help to strengthen the role of members.
	It is time to give communities more control over local services, so today we are also consulting on devolving decisions about the railway to sub-national bodies. Our joint consultation with the Office of Rail Regulation on a greater role for the ORR in regulating passenger franchises closed recently. With a smarter regulatory approach, our aim is to remove Government from day-to-day industry involvement by adopting a more unified regulatory structure for the railways and we will publish our conclusions in due course.
	Facing up to reality, saving fare payers and taxpayers £3.5 billion a year, reforming our railways and putting the customer first: that is what the Command Paper is all about. By working together on this package of reform, I believe that industry, the regulator and Government can generate the savings and the change we need. Lower costs, better services and ticketing that offers greater choice and flexibility, as well as a rail industry built to last because it is efficient, effective and affordable: that is what the Command Paper will deliver and I commend it to the House.

Maria Eagle: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement and repeat our thanks to Sir Roy McNulty and his team for their work. We did not agree with all his conclusions and, if we had been in government, we would not have accepted all his recommendations. It was a valuable piece of work, however, that is helping to drive a number of reforms in the industry that we welcome.
	Passengers have every reason to be concerned about the direction that the Secretary of State has just set for the rail industry, with year after year of inflation-busting fare rises, ticket offices closed, fewer staff on trains and at stations and cuts in investment in the rail network. In each case, the interests of private train companies are being put before those of passengers and the principle that we established in government of a clear separation of infrastructure and maintenance from private profit is being abandoned, for the first time giving private train companies the whip hand over Network Rail. That is a dangerous experiment that takes the industry on the road to breaking up and selling off Britain’s railway infrastructure, all because this is a Government who are simply unwilling or unable to stand up to vested interests on behalf of passengers. [ Interruption. ] The question that the Government have yet to answer is this: if we are all in this together, why is the burden yet again to fall on the fare payer and not on those who are already making huge profits—[ Interruption. ]

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The Secretary of State was listened to politely without Front-Bench heckling and I expect the shadow Secretary of State to be heard without heckling from those on the Front Bench or anywhere else.

Maria Eagle: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The question that the Government have yet to answer is this: if we are all in this together, why is the burden yet again to fall on the fare payer and not on those who are already making huge profits that are lost to the industry and that help to drive up the cost to the taxpayer of running our railway?
	Therefore, we cannot support these reforms. In the coming weeks we will set out our own alternative approach to reforming the rail industry, but for today I would be grateful if the Secretary of State answered a number of specific questions of concern to passengers and commuters about her proposals.
	On fares, the National Audit Office has warned that the Government’s fare rises, which are adding to the cost of living crises facing households, are just as likely to increase the profits of train operators as reduce costs for the taxpayer. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the entire cost of holding fare rises at just 1% above inflation for the rest of this Parliament and strictly enforcing that cap would be less than the £543 million her Department handed back to the Treasury as a result of an underspend last year? Will she therefore abandon plans to increase fares by 3% above inflation in 2013 and 2014?
	The Secretary of State said today that the days of above-inflation fare rises are coming to an end, so will she explain why the tender documents for the new franchises assure bidders that they can increase fares by up to 6% above inflation every single year of those 15-year franchises? Will she confirm that, under the plans she has set out today, train companies will be given even more freedoms on fares, including the right to introduce a super-peak ticket, which will hit hard-pressed commuters in particular?
	I welcome the commitment to extend smart integrated ticketing that can be used on trains and buses, enabling the rest of the country to catch up with London. The fact that that will enable part-time workers to benefit from new flexible season tickets is particularly welcome, but will the Secretary of State explain how that will work outside London if she remains unwilling to take steps to regulate the bus network outside the capital as we proposed?
	On the level of services, will the Secretary of State explain why the inter-city west coast franchise tender document allows daily service reductions of up to 10%? Will that not lead to even greater overcrowding than passengers already face? Will she explain why the final tender documents for the new franchises have also watered down the performance obligations since the earlier draft? The requirement to improve performance over the life of the franchise has been replaced by a requirement to do so unless
	“good evidence can be provided as to why this is not achievable.”
	Surely passengers expect the Government to insist on improvements, not simply to police the excuses that the train operating companies come up with.
	Does the Secretary of State understand the concerns about the train companies’ new freedoms to close ticket offices and cut the number of staff on trains and platforms? Will she explain why the new franchises ask bidders only to consider maintaining the same level of CCTV on trains?
	The structural reforms to the industry are also deeply worrying. Does the Secretary of State understand the concerns that the restructuring she proposes has a massive accountability gap at its heart? Genuine backing for devolution, which the Government have ducked today, would see transport authorities deciding the best way to deliver rail services in each region. Should that not permit alternatives to the existing franchise model to be explored, including not-for-profit and mutual options? Does she agree that for devolution to work those authorities need a fair deal on costs, subsidies and risks? This cannot be—as is suspected—about devolving responsibility for cuts.
	Will the Secretary of State explain how the decision to allow deep alliances between train companies and Network Rail, with private train companies having the whip hand, fits with the need for democratic accountability? I know the Conservative party is determined to complete the job it started with its botched rail privatisation, but does she not accept that the decision we took to create Network Rail as a not-for-dividend body has served the industry well? Why is she willing to turn back the clock and take us back to the bad old days by creating what are effectively a series of mini-Railtracks? Where is the accountability to passengers, taxpayers and Parliament? How can there possibly be a level playing field in future franchise competitions if the incumbent is part of a single management team? Does she not see the clear conflicts of interest that are evident throughout her proposals?
	How will Network Rail continue to support the interests of freight operators and their need to access the network in a system where private train operators manage the network in each region? Will the Secretary of State explain why long-term concessions will not simply add to the costly fragmentation of the industry? Why does she believe that breaking up and selling track piece by piece will improve performance and safety?
	This long-awaited rail strategy is a wasted opportunity to address the structural issues left from the botched rail privatisation. Instead of tackling the fragmented structure of the industry that was the legacy of privatisation, the Government are instead creating an even more fragmented and costly structure with more interfaces, more need for lawyers and consultants, less accountability, and, at the same time, more freedoms for train companies to hike fares and cut services, booking offices and front-line staff. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Secretary of State will think again and instead seek to build consensus on the future of the rail industry, based on devolution and genuine local control with communities and passengers in the driving seat, stand up to private companies, not cave in to vested interests, and put passengers before profits. It is not too late for her to do that. I hope that she will think about it.

Justine Greening: Obviously, I listened with interest to what the hon. Lady said and I hope that she would at least accept that the current situation, with a rail industry that Roy McNulty says costs £3.5 billion more than it needs to due to inefficiency, is something that we should tackle. I note that she says she is going to come forward with an alternative and it is important that she does that because if she is turning her face against this approach, she is saying that it is okay for fare payers and taxpayers to pay that £3.5 billion in perpetuity. I think that is
	broadly what she was saying, but I shall await with interest her alternative proposal, which she needs now to provide.
	The hon. Lady talks about the burden falling on the fare payer, but that is exactly what happens now. That is one reason why there has been so much pressure for fares to go up year on year. Let me remind her that her party also recognised that problem, which is why it commissioned Sir Roy McNulty to do that work and why it struggled with the issue too, itself overseeing years of above-inflation rail fare rises. What all of us in the House should be looking towards, with the strategy we have produced, is how to tackle these issues. We want fares to remain affordable. I have stressed on a number of occasions and at several points in the documents we have released today that it is absolutely key that we make sure that fares remain affordable. The underlying objective we are trying to achieve is the end of inflation-busting fares. We also want to cut down on the level of public subsidy, as we would prefer that money to go towards reducing the deficit or into investment in other areas.
	I am pleased that the hon. Lady welcomes the flexible season tickets. If we are able to push forward on smart ticketing across the country, people will be able to use that sort of ticketing not only on the railways but potentially on buses too. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), who has responsibility for buses, will be producing a strategy that includes all those opportunities in the coming weeks.
	The hon. Lady mentioned ticket offices. I understand that many passengers strongly value the face-to-face channel that a ticket office provides, as can be seen in the documents. However, I remind her that when her party was in office there were large-scale reductions in ticket office opening hours. In 2009, Labour Ministers approved cuts to opening hours at 70% of South West Trains ticket offices. The Command Paper has a section on how we want stations to improve, including by having crèches at stations where that is a sensible idea. Face-to-face channels are important for people buying tickets, which is why one of the ideas in the paper is to investigate whether people could buy tickets at their local post office, library or shop, as people can with Oyster in London. All those things should mean that people have more, rather than fewer, opportunities to buy tickets face to face.
	In the rest of the fares and ticketing consultation—and I stress that it is a consultation—there are some really good ideas for moving ticketing into the 21st century, including on how we can make sure that the approach to ticketing reflects working practices today and the fact that people work flexibly and part-time, rather than expecting them to fit into a ticketing approach that would be better placed in the 1980s.
	I am pleased that the hon. Lady asked about devolution and decentralisation because that is possibly one of the most exciting parts of all this in the long term for local communities. It opens up an important debate about how franchises might be more spec’d up in the long term and controlled by local communities. I assure her that this is about giving local communities opportunities, not about passing on some underlying problem. Indeed, the Government are absolutely clear that we need to
	tackle the underlying problem of inefficiency in our railways. That is what the document is all about.
	The hon. Lady raised concerns about alliancing. I think that getting the industry to work together is a common-sense approach to tackling some of the inefficiencies that exist, which are directly funded in the end by fare payers and taxpayers. Today, when asked, she was not able to rule out her party wanting to renationalise the railways, but I think that we need to make the pieces of the jigsaw fit together better. Simply throwing them up in the air again would only waste time and make it harder for the industry to take the responsibility that we want it to, and I do not think that that would be the right way forward.
	Finally, I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns about freight and we are absolutely committed to making sure it is a core part of the network going forward. One of the underlying reasons for high-speed rail is to make sure we have capacity on the core network for freight. We need to make sure there are safeguards in place regarding any of these changes so that the freight industry can continue to do what we want it to, which is to re-mode on to trains.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I am sure the whole House is very grateful for the Secretary of State’s comprehensive reply to all those points. I hope therefore that there will now be short questions and brief answers, so that we can get all Members in.

Alan Haselhurst: I welcome the thrust of my right hon. Friend’s statement, but can she offer me some encouragement that the West Anglia line, which has lacked capacity improvements since its third and fourth tracks were torn up in the wake of the Beeching report, now has a better chance of having its track capacity enhanced?

Justine Greening: I believe that the performance on that line is starting to improve, but the document we are issuing today is all about making sure that train operating companies are in a position to deliver, and are working with Network Rail to deliver, better services for passengers in a more efficient way.

Louise Ellman: I welcome the Secretary of State’s willingness to look at the rail sector overall, but how much funding do the Government intend to remove from supporting the rail service? Will she explain exactly how the spiralling cost of rail fares will be addressed, overcrowding will be reduced and extra capacity can be produced where it is required, such as across the north?

Justine Greening: We recognise that we need to tackle the underlying inefficiencies in the railways, which Sir Roy McNulty identified as totalling around £3.5 billion. I also recognise that some of the network provides a broader public good and that there will therefore be a need for public subsidy. However, we need to make sure that that represents good value for taxpayer money. We are concerned about overcrowding. That is why we are investing in 2,700 new carriages, which will provide extra capacity. That is why the overall £18 billion of
	investment going into the industry is so crucial; that is one way in which we can improve performance. Of course, making sure the industry is financially sustainable is absolutely critical too.

Simon Wright: Can the Secretary of State confirm that plans are progressing for the electrification of 800 miles of rail track? How does that scale of ambition compare with the achievements of the previous Government?

Justine Greening: That is an interesting question. I think we all understand that electrification can bring a broad set of benefits. The previous Government electrified 39 miles of line in 13 years—that is about 3 miles a year—and we have already announced that 800 miles of line are to be electrified. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.

Alistair Darling: Does the right hon. Lady accept that in this industry successive Secretaries of State have found that announcing efficiencies is much easier than actually achieving them? If we do not achieve them, fares will go up or investment will suffer. Does she accept that it is absolutely essential to continue the investment that started 10 years ago, which included upgrading the west cost main line—something that had not been done for 30 years—because the east coast main line and commuter services will need to be upgraded? We must not forget the lessons of the 1990s, when 10 years of no investment had absolutely catastrophic consequences for the industry.

Justine Greening: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is right. One problem in the past has been that, every time a Government have wanted to drive efficiencies in the rail sector, they have rearranged the whole railway structure, whereas what we need to do is get the pieces that are there working better.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the west coast main line, which is a good example of how things can go wrong. It was pencilled in to cost £2 billion; it ended up costing £9 billion and took significantly longer than was anticipated. It is a good example of why we cannot go on like that and why we have to work with the industry and challenge it to work better itself.

Edward Leigh: Exactly. Does the Secretary of State agree that politicians are useless in any industry at picking winners, and will she reassure us that this Conservative Government remain committed to a privatised industry in which competition and a market-driven approach have driven record growth in numbers, and that there will be no return to the bad old days of British Rail with stultifying ministerial control?

Justine Greening: The Labour party may not be prepared to rule out nationalisation, but I am.

Tom Harris: I am disappointed in the statement. In the time I have been in the House, I have never heard a ministerial statement so lacking in substance. This is not a statement; it is a coincidence of ink patterns on a bit of paper. The Secretary of State says that she wants £3.5 billion of efficiency
	savings by 2019, but she has not given us a single way of saving one penny. Was she even in the House yesterday when the Prime Minister told the nation that government was about making tough decisions? Where is a single tough decision in this statement? She does not have any solutions; all she has come up with is a series of clichés and warm words put together by civil servants not wanting to offend anyone.

Justine Greening: I recommend that the hon. Gentleman read the documents that we have published, which have a lot more of the detail that he wants. I am not going to take any lectures on tough decisions from someone who, when asked about Network Rail bonuses, said:
	“Bonuses … are a matter for the company’s remuneration committee, not for Ministers.”—[Official Report, 24 June 2008; Vol. 478, c. 174W.]
	I do not think that showed any backbone whatsoever.

David Evennett: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement today and the approach to our railways. Does she agree that we need more reliable journeys and better passenger experiences on all our trains, but particularly on our commuter routes? May I urge her to help to enhance access to stations and to improve the resilience of the network in winter weather?

Justine Greening: The industry has put substantial investment into improving winter resilience, and of course, having done that, as we could have guessed, we have had one of the mildest winters in recent years. We are much better prepared to keep the trains running in snow and bad weather than we were in the past. Reliability and punctuality are incredibly important. Today’s statement is as much about that as anything else, because a more efficiently run railway will be able to perform better.

Katy Clark: The Scottish Government have just closed their consultation with similar proposals that will involve station closures, reductions in staffing and higher fares. What implications will the announcement today have on Scotland, especially in relation to the block grant, with Barnett consequentials, and on cross-border services?

Justine Greening: I was up in Scotland only last week, having some helpful discussions about high-speed rail and improving connectivity with Scotland on the railway network. Scotland has a devolved settlement for transport, but I have no doubt that the Scottish Government will look carefully at my proposals today. I am always happy to talk to the Scottish Government about how we can work together to get better value out of those cross-border services.

Tobias Ellwood: Is it not curious that Labour Members always choose to gloss over their responsibilities when we debate these issues? It is their report that we are debating—the McNulty report—which says that there are £3 billion of efficiencies to be had. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the leadership that she is showing in bringing together the Government and the rail networks to achieve better service for our customers.

Justine Greening: I appreciate my hon. Friend’s kind words. As the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) set out, we have no mean challenge ahead of us, but we know the direction that we want to travel and how we are going to get there. The key now is to make sure that we implement that and that I work with the industry as it gets on with this.

Hugh Bayley: I think I am the only Member in the Chamber today who served on the Public Bill Committee that considered the Railways Bill that privatised the railways almost 20 years ago. We were told at the time by Conservative Ministers that privatisation would drive down costs and increase efficiency, but we know now that that was not at all the case. Privatisation cost thousands of railway jobs. I still have hundreds of railway jobs in my constituency, but what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the number of jobs on the railways that will be lost as a result of her statement, nationally and in my constituency?

Justine Greening: There has never been a better time to be working in the railway industry. We have record investment going into the industry; it is unprecedented since Victorian times. I have spoken to both Network Rail and the TUC about how we can work harder to develop careers in the railway industry and get more women working in the industry—only 13% of Network Rail’s employees are women. There is a huge opportunity ahead of us, not just for passengers and taxpayers but for staff. I hope that everyone can work together to deliver efficiency improvements from which everyone benefits.

Dan Byles: I thank my right hon. Friend and warmly welcome the statement, which shows a clear commitment to improving the existing rail network. However, we cannot completely separate the high-speed rail project from rail reform. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the colossal sums of money being invested in high-speed rail will not in any way minimise the investment going into the existing railway system?

Justine Greening: They will not. We have an ambitious programme, as I have said to the House, and high-speed rail sits alongside that. It is complementary, and it is critical that we do not just improve the existing system but look ahead to the capacity that we will need on a new network.

Kate Hoey: Is not one of the reasons why train fares in Europe are much lower than here that many countries still have public ownership of their railways? Does the Secretary of State accept that the statement is just a green light for the mostly foreign-owned train operators in this country to have a feeding frenzy on raising fares so that they can keep the fares down in their own countries?

Justine Greening: I do not accept that at all. I have a huge amount of respect for the hon. Lady, but this is not the time to rearrange the industry in the way that she suggests. We need to look at the pieces and then make sure that they work more effectively together. Sir Roy talked in his report about the different levels of working that the industry could do, and we are keen to
	see the industry work more closely together. I am sure that when the hon. Lady reads the report she will see some of the potential routes that that could take. I do not agree with her; I think the key to success now is getting the industry to collaborate more and for us to support it in doing that.

Julian Sturdy: McNulty suggested that rail company franchises should be less prescriptive and allow more freedom to respond to the market. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that will bring more investment into services such as the east coast main line, which was left in limbo by the previous Government, and more certainty to my constituents in York, who rely heavily on it?

Justine Greening: We need to strike that balance between granting longer franchises so that it is worth train operating companies improving services for passengers and putting in investment even when that takes a bit longer to come through because it is a bigger improvement and a bigger investment. That is absolutely right. My hon. Friend’s other point is well made; things change and we need a flexible franchising approach because, as we have seen, growth in demand and passenger numbers in the past decade has been substantial, so we need to make sure that our franchising can reflect and adapt to that.

Clive Betts: Perhaps the Secretary of State will agree that one of the best ways to improve efficiency on the railways is to make better use of under-used track? One of the best ways to do that in urban areas is to develop tram trains, which has been done successfully in other countries while we are still considering the possible introduction of a pilot. Can she say when the pilot for the tram train in South Yorkshire is due to start?

Justine Greening: I cannot, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman to set that out very soon. I know exactly the project that he refers to and I know that it is in plan. I will tell him exactly when he can expect it to happen.

Marcus Jones: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, alongside the action that she is taking with the rail industry to reduce the cost base of running our railways, the £18 billion investment programme of upgrades and improvement, including the Nuneaton to Coventry upgrade announced last year, will go ahead?

Justine Greening: Yes, it will. That is one of the reasons why it is such an exciting time to be involved in the industry, because this unprecedented investment is being made. It is a huge opportunity for people working in the industry and for passengers. We will hopefully get the benefits of all those investments and people will really see the difference it can make to their commute and their travel when they get on the train.

John McDonnell: I worry about the right hon. Lady using the Ronseal method, because painting over the cracks in the industry might come back to haunt her. One of the implications of the statement is that 12,000 jobs are at risk, mainly those of station staff. In addition, it reintroduces the profit motive to the provision of the infrastructure,
	which caused the Potters Bar, Hatfield, Paddington and Southall rail crashes. Has there been an independent safety assessment of today’s proposals?

Justine Greening: Safety will always be of paramount importance as we consider any of these changes. We are currently spending £3.5 billion, money that is coming out of the pockets of fare payers or taxpayers, and that is pure inefficiency. I think that not being prepared to tackle that is irresponsible. I understand that the hon. Gentleman might have some concerns about my proposal, but is he is saying that passengers should pick up the tab for £3.5 billion? If he does not like the proposal, it is incumbent on him to come up with an alternative.

Matthew Offord: The response of the unions to the McNulty report was to make some wild claims in my constituency about the closure of the ticket office. Does the Secretary of State agree with me, and with commuters on the Thameslink line in my constituency, that what they want is increased technology that allows them to buy tickets more quickly, simply and easily? They would also like to see staff brought out from behind glass panels in order to increase the personal security for people on the platforms, as we have seen on the tube.

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is right. A variety of people now use the railways, and the ticketing system needs to keep up with that, but I will take this opportunity to stress again that we understand the importance of face-to-face contact, which many customers value when buying tickets. We will ensure that we bear that in mind as we approach any decisions on ticket offices.

Gavin Shuker: Sir Roy McNulty identified fragmentation in the industry as one of the major reasons why costs in the UK are so high. What will her plans to further fragment the industry do to those costs? Will they improve outcomes for passengers or increase the amount we pay in subsidy for the railways?

Justine Greening: We are not further fragmenting the industry; we are encouraging it to work collaboratively and more effectively. If by talking about fragmentation the hon. Gentleman is criticising our proposals to decentralise some decision making, I think that he is wrong.

Gavin Williamson: The ticket office at Codsall station was closed a number of years ago and has been replaced by the fantastic Codsall station pub. My right hon. Friend has talked about allowing post offices the opportunity to sell tickets, but will she look at letting the Codsall station pub sell tickets?

Justine Greening: That sounds like a good idea that my hon. Friend’s local community might like to take forward. I encourage him to look through the document, which contains a section on how we want to see stations improve more generally.

Kelvin Hopkins: I had the pleasure of meeting Sir Roy McNulty on two occasions after his early conclusion that our railways are up to 40% more
	expensive to run than continental railways. I suggested to him that the simple and obvious difference between them is that they are publicly owned and integrated and ours are privatised and fragmented. I suggest to the Secretary of State that we will not overcome our problems or reduce costs until our railways, too, are publicly owned and integrated.

Justine Greening: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Realistically, his approach would simply involve throwing the jigsaw pieces back up in the air, which would mean years of delay and uncertainty, and of course passengers and taxpayers would continue to have to foot the bill for that, which I think would be unacceptable. We have today set out a proposal on how we will get a grip on the £3.5 billion of inefficiency. Until the Labour party has an alternative, fare payers and taxpayers would prefer it to get behind our proposals and help to make them happen.

Robert Halfon: I welcome the right hon. Friend’s statement and what she said about smartcards. Will she consider extending Oysterisation to outer London towns, such as Harlow, which would benefit commuters? May I also ask her to increase investment in rolling stock, when financial conditions allow, so that we can have more trains at peak times running from London to Harlow and vice versa?

Justine Greening: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that we earmarked £45 million in the autumn statement to enable us to extend the use of smartcards and Oysterisation further in the south-east. With regard to capacity, we are making a substantial investment with 2,700 new carriages. I would be happy to sit down with him and get his views on how his local area could benefit from that.

Bob Russell: Fortuitously, this afternoon I am to meet representatives of Network Rail and Abellio to discuss the deterioration of the service between Colchester and London. Does the Secretary of State agree that the reality and the rhetoric are on different tracks and that if we are to reform our railways and put customers first, the fragmentation of the industry post-privatisation must be addressed? They need to talk to each other more than they do at the moment.

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the whole point of what we are talking about today: greater collaborative working and formal alliancing where we think that could drive better performance and better value for taxpayers’ money. It is time for the industry to step up to the plate and work together to ensure that our railway system is more efficient than it has been in the past.

Brandon Lewis: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. She mentioned the section in the report on train stations—paragraph 4.39. Great Yarmouth, like many towns across the country, has a station that is much in need of repair. May we take it from the report that in future we can look to some new, out-of-the-box thinking on innovative ways to improve our stations for passengers in future?

Justine Greening: It is time to think more innovatively. We should look at how train-operating companies can work more effectively alongside Network Rail than they have previously been able to do in order to improve the stations that their passengers use every day.

Alun Cairns: The Transport Committee in the previous Parliament accused the previous Government of breathtaking complacency. Will the Secretary of State reassure me that the significant savings that will be made as a result of the proposals she has set out today will lead to lower fares, greater reliability and more investment in rail services in general?

Justine Greening: We will be moving in that direction. Our aim is first to reduce the above-inflation fares and then to get rid of them. Of course, a huge amount of investment is being made in all the other key things my hon. Friend talked about, which I am very supportive of and, indeed, excited about. I think that it is a great time for the railways. The sort of investment that is being made to improve passenger capacity and experience is unprecedented, and we will ensure that we get every bang for the buck out of it that we can for the public.

Peter Bone: I thank the Secretary of State, as I think the whole House will, for making copies of the report available before the statement, which was very much appreciated.
	Is it not wonderful that we have heard socialist ideas from the Opposition Benches? They suggest that we should renationalise the railways and everything will be wonderful. Have they forgotten that under British Rail they were managing decline and putting prices up? Under privatisation far more people have wanted to get on the trains, so the solution is to find more capacity, not renationalise.

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is right. We have seen huge increases in passenger demand. What we have heard today is really a battle between the Government Members representing common sense and the Opposition Members, representing the past.

Charlie Elphicke: I welcome the Secretary of State’s determination to put the customer first. Does she agree that for too long the railway industry has been imprisoned by provider interest, whether greedy, bank-owned train leasing companies, bonus-hungry managers or dinosaurs and luddites from the trade unions, while the previous Government walked on by? Is it any wonder that our railways are among the most expensive in Europe?

Justine Greening: In many respects it has been an impossible situation, and certainly one that cannot continue. We cannot allow £3.5 billion of inefficiency a year to go unchecked and always to be paid for by taxpayers and fare payers. That is what this document and this strategy are all about tackling.

Bob Blackman: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the RMT has threatened a national campaign of resistance, including industrial action if necessary. What message does she have for those trade union dinosaurs and for the hard-working staff in the rail industry about the potential benefits?

Justine Greening: I urge everybody to work with us to improve the railways for the sake of passengers and taxpayers. That is the decision that we all have to take. It is simply unacceptable that every year £3.5 billion of inefficiency is paid for by people across the country who cannot afford it. We have to get a grip on that, and we will do so by working together. I hope that the unions will see that there is a huge opportunity to work with us on this. There is massive investment and there is room for jobs and growth. We just need an industry that is financially sustainable so that that can take place.

Point of Order

Kerry McCarthy: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, a number of people who came here to lobby their MPs about the Save the NHS rally were prohibited by House of Commons security from wearing T-shirts saying “Save the NHS”. People were told to put them on inside out and, in one case, T-shirts were removed from someone’s bag, presumably on the grounds that there is no place for politics in Parliament. Will you clarify the position on this matter? My understanding is that Mr Speaker has said that people should not be prohibited from wearing such T-shirts. It is a ridiculous curb on free expression.

Dawn Primarolo: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. I am aware that Mr Speaker has expressed a view on the wearing of T-shirts and the types of slogans that may be on them. If she will forgive me, I need to consult Mr Speaker to ensure that there is a clear ruling on the wearing of T-shirts with slogans, which would be of help to Members, the public and the security staff who enforce such undertakings. I hope that she will bear with us for a little longer.

Backbench Business

[Un-alloted Day]
	 — 
	International Women’s Day

Topical debate

Dawn Primarolo: Greetings to all Members of the House on international women’s day. This is such a popular debate that it is necessary to have a five-minute time limit on speeches. If there are interventions, I am afraid that the time limit will have to go lower than five minutes. However, I am sure that we can all co-operate and ensure that everybody who wishes to participate in the debate manages to speak.

Fiona Mactaggart: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of International Women’s Day.
	Each year, the United Nations declares an overall international theme for women’s day. This year’s theme is “Empower Rural Women—End Hunger and Poverty”. It is right to recognise that giving power to women is one of the most effective ways of ending poverty, but it must be real economic and political power, because when women get close to power, men too often take it back. We saw that in the Arab spring, when brave women who led the early protests were subjected to sexual assault.
	Giving power to women ends hunger, because women’s money gets spent on children. Although we expect 1 million more children to be born in Britain over the next decade than in the last, this Government have targeted children. Children are due to pay more than bankers towards dealing with the deficit. Welfare reform, which is trumpeted as a plan to make work pay, is hitting the poorest working families with children, many of whom will lose tax credits worth £3,800 because they are unable to find more working hours. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has found that one in five companies has cut down on hours, whereas only one in 17 has increased them. The Government have not even exempted families where one parent is caring full time for a disabled child from the demand that at least 24 hours are worked to qualify for such tax credits.
	At the other end of the pay scale, mothers are due to lose their child benefit. Child benefit replaced the tax allowance because it was recognised that delivering child support to a mother is the best way of reaching children. Soon, Britain will be one of the only countries in the developed world that lacks a universal mechanism whereby people who do not have children contribute to the costs of child rearing through the tax and benefits system.

Harriett Baldwin: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I am a bit disappointed that this is becoming a political rant, when there is so much to celebrate about women in this country. Does she think it is right that I receive child benefit when I earn £65,000 a year? Will it be in her party’s manifesto at the next election to bring it back?

Fiona Mactaggart: I am old enough to remember the invention of child benefit. It ended a child tax allowance system that advantaged the richest more. The great thing about child benefit is that it says that all of us are responsible for children. It ought to be universal. It is, in effect, a tax allowance for children. It is quite wrong to suggest that it is a benefit from which richer people should be exempted. Everyone who has children should be responsible for them.

Elizabeth Truss: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Fiona Mactaggart: I want to give everyone the opportunity to get in. Although I am happy to take interventions, I think that I should resist so that more Members have a chance to—

Elizabeth Truss: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Fiona Mactaggart: I have just explained why I am not giving way.
	We are told that the proposed universal benefit will make work pay, but for whom? It will end the tradition, built up in the Labour years, of paying family benefits to the main carer in the household, who is usually a woman. Men will be the default recipient. As a result, women and children will get less.

Charlie Elphicke: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Fiona Mactaggart: I have explained why I am resisting. I want to give more people a chance to make the contribution that they want to make. I think that that is right in this debate. I am talking about the real situation for women today. I would like to be able to celebrate the progress that women have made; I am explaining why I fear the situation is going backwards.
	As I was saying, women are paying 70% of the cost of deficit reduction, with £13.2 billion coming from women and £5.7 billion from men. Women are being squeezed out of the labour market. Record numbers of women are jobless. The biggest jump in unemployment has been among older women aged 50 to 64—up by 20,000 in the last quarter. At the same time, unemployment among younger women went down.
	We are facing a crisis for this group of older women. They have faced the shock that their pensions are to be deferred and they need to use these crucial years to build up their pensions. However, they will find it hard to find a new job. Often, women are losing jobs in the public sector, where there is a better record on equal pay than in the private sector. That means that women’s snail-like progress towards equal pay risks sliding backwards. Older women are sandwiched between supporting their children, who are staying at home longer, saddled with university debt, because they cannot afford their own housing, and supporting their elderly parents, who are being failed by a health service made increasingly chaotic by Government reform. The next debate will focus on carers, so all I will say is that this Government’s failure to grasp the challenge of care has delegated responsibility for it to the nation’s women, which just is not fair.
	If the prospects for women at work and for women’s income are gloomy, what about elsewhere? Every Woman Safe Everywhere, a commission chaired by the former Member of Parliament for Redcar, shows how women have become less safe. There has been a 31% cut in refuges and services that tackle domestic violence. Some 230 women are turned away from a refuge on a typical day. The suggestion that housing benefit will no longer cover the service provision in refuges is a further threat to refuge provision. When women move on, they will be entitled only to the single room rate of housing benefit.
	I will never forget the Iraqi woman refugee in Slough, a qualified radiographer, who was slowly being made mad because she was so scared by living in a house, and sharing a kitchen and bathroom, with young men who had no respect for her religion or her privacy. We are about to do that to women who are leaving refuges.
	Removing from the DNA database the samples of men who have been accused but not convicted of rape, when we know both that convictions are hard to secure and—

Andrea Leadsom: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Fiona Mactaggart: I will, but the hon. Lady must understand that by intervening, she is reducing the time for other speakers.

Andrea Leadsom: I will be very quick. Does the hon. Lady welcome the Government’s determination to open more rape crisis centres for women?

Fiona Mactaggart: Absolutely. In order to make more time for other speakers, I cut the bit of my speech that I had written in which I welcomed that, and I cut other things as well. I have frequently praised the Government for putting on a secure basis the funding for rape crisis centres, which used to arrive under the previous Government but was utterly unpredictable. That is the one thing that the Government have done that will make women safer, and I welcome it.

Helen Grant: Does the hon. Lady welcome Clare’s law?

Fiona Mactaggart: I do, and I welcome the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) in championing it on behalf of her constituent who was a victim. I am glad that it will be brought in. In a way, I would have liked the announcements that were made today at some reception in Downing street to be made in this debate. The Government should have told us here what they were going to do, which would have provided an opportunity to debate their plans in the international women’s day debate.
	As I was saying, removing from the DNA database the samples of men who have been accused but not convicted of rape, when we know both that convictions are hard to secure and that rape is a serial crime, is irresponsible. Other public sector cuts, from railway stations to street lights, will make neighbourhoods more frightening for women.
	Here in Britain, a separate theme has been identified for international women’s day—“Connecting girls, inspiring futures”. I really wish that we offered girls here in
	Britain a more inspiring future, but I am afraid that this generation of young women will probably be the first to do less well than their mothers.

Claire Perry: Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the least inspiring things that we could do would be to leave a giant deficit for those girls to pay off with their future taxes?

Fiona Mactaggart: There are other ways to tackle the deficit than to target women and children. I do not think it right, on this day, to argue that it is right to do that. If we make the world more unequal, we make a sad future for our daughters. I acknowledge the hon. Lady’s work on, for example, pornography. I have been proud to support her campaign to enable mothers to protect their daughters and sons from pornography on the internet. There are things that we agree on, and we should celebrate them, but we should not use that celebration to paper over the risk that pay is becoming more unequal, opportunities are becoming fewer and women are becoming less safe. That is not a reason to celebrate on this international women’s day.

Helen Grant: Since the introduction of the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007, there have been 257 forced marriage protection orders, five recorded breaches and one person sent to prison, and in 2010 alone, 1,735 people were supported by the Government’s forced marriage unit. The youngest victim was 12 and the oldest 73. In just a few short years, that legislation has made a positive impact, and demand for orders continues to rise. However, there are still major problems with education, discovery and implementation. Not enough is being done on prevention, and ongoing scepticism greets women and children when they report forced marriage.
	Consideration is now being given to how to make the breach of a forced marriage protection order a criminal offence, and, going even further, to whether forced marriage should be a criminal offence. Criminalisation might seem to colleagues a popular and reasonable option, showing the public a tough approach against an alien and wicked practice, but I urge caution.
	My 23 years as a family lawyer leave me with some doubt that criminalisation would improve matters for victims. Indeed, it could be a backward step. The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 criminalised the breaching of a non-molestation injunction order. There were very good intentions behind that, but there were many unforeseen consequences. Important comparisons can be made between that legislation and what is being contemplated now in relation to forced marriage.
	I was a busy domestic violence practitioner at the time, and I made three principal observations. First, the police were often slow and reluctant to pursue breaches because of perceived more serious crimes such as robbery and burglary. The Crown Prosecution Service was also slow or reluctant to do so because of the need to satisfy the high criminal burden of proof, namely “beyond reasonable doubt”, and because of the evidential difficulties of crimes that often happen behind closed doors.

Charlie Elphicke: rose —

Helen Grant: I will take a very quick intervention.

Charlie Elphicke: I thank my hon. Friend for—

Hon. Members: Sit down, Helen.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Would the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) like to sit down? I think it is best for Members to leave the chairing of the debates to the Deputy Speaker, but if the hon. Lady is giving way to Charlie Elphicke, she needs to sit down while he is speaking.

Charlie Elphicke: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. There are many loving relationships, and there has been a revolution meaning that there are more women in the workplace than ever before, and also in relationships in which the children are cared for and deeply loved. Men even change nappies, as I did. Should we not celebrate the good things about men and women, and about women in the workplace?

Helen Grant: Of course we should. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
	In consequence of the authorities’ reluctance to pursue breaches of injunction orders, victims were again and again left thinking, “Why did I bother getting my injunction order?” Perpetrators were left thinking, “I got away with it”.
	My second observation was that pursuing a civil action required the victim to be in the driving seat, which could be a completely empowering experience. She made the decisions and provided the instructions, supported by her own legal team. In contrast, in criminal cases the victim is merely a witness for the prosecution. She has no control over the proceedings, she is given very little information and she has no legal team to support her. In fact, being a prime witness for the prosecution is an isolating experience and frequently leads to the withdrawal of evidence and the collapse of prosecution cases.
	My third observation was that domestic violence, like forced marriage, could involve close family members—mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, uncles and aunts. Whereas victims were prepared to obtain civil orders to protect themselves, they were often reluctant to pursue a breach, because it would lead to a criminal conviction for the perpetrator and far-reaching consequences for the victim, her family and sometimes the community. Indeed, in a survey in 2011, Dr Aisha Gill of Roehampton university found that 57% of respondents said that victims would be less likely to seek help if forcing someone to marry became a criminal offence. Advocates also argue that victims stand more chance of reconciling with their families if a protection order is invoked rather than a criminal prosecution.
	Those three observations, together with anecdotal evidence from professional colleagues and the judiciary, suggest that criminalisation of non-molestation injunction orders has left far too many victims without redress and with a real sense of injustice. I remain unconvinced, too, that there is a gap in the law that needs to be filled. In forcing someone to marry against their will, numerous other criminal offences may be committed—assault, abduction, aiding and abetting a criminal offence, cruelty, failure to secure attendance at school, false imprisonment,
	theft, rape, kidnapping, threats to kill, harassment, blackmail and murder. That list shows that we already have a range of criminal laws that can be used to prosecute in a forced marriage context.
	For all the reasons that I have stated, I am concerned that criminalisation of forced marriage could lead to under-reporting, the export of the crime abroad and the practice being driven substantially underground. There is no quick fix.

Mary Macleod: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Helen Grant: I am sorry, I will not.
	We need to deal with cultural expectations of duty and honour and work with communities, schools and agencies to change attitudes and behaviour towards women and their right to choose their own partner.
	Good progress has been made in the past three years using the civil law. It would be a travesty if such work were undone. The criminal law may punish the perpetrator, but it does little to protect the victim and can often cause no end of collateral damage. In Scotland, recent forced marriage legislation already criminalises breach of an order. We therefore have a prime opportunity to pause, observe and review, and avoid creating yet another criminal offence, which could so easily defeat the object of our very best intentions.

Mary Glindon: On this day of celebration across the world, I would like to speak about an organisation known to us all, which now plays an important part in the lives of thousands of young women in this country: the Scout Association.
	Girls and young women have been able to join the scouts for more than 20 years and last year, more girls than boys became scouts. That rise in young women’s membership has been highest in the Explorer section, which takes its members from among 14 to 18-year-olds. Nationally, half the adult scout leaders are women.
	Although as a child I was only in the Brownies for a short while and never made it to the girl guides, I am a strong supporter of scouts and guides. I have seen at first hand the work that scouts have done in my constituency, particularly in deprived areas. I recently visited a new unit at St Stephen’s RC primary school in Longbenton, where the head teacher, Stephen Fallon, had discovered that some of his pupils had been responsible for antisocial behaviour in the local community. Working with Northumberland scout association, he has set up a new unit, which provides both girls and boys with opportunities in their young lives that would not otherwise be afforded them. Those opportunities are helping make those children good young citizens in North Tyneside.
	As a result of that visit, I agreed to become an ambassador for Northumberland scout association and have learnt about Lookwide, the association’s development project, which specialises in working with disaffected young people aged between nine and 25 by providing them with a personal development programme. Those young people are not expected to join the scouts, but they gain a wide range of valuable life skills, combined
	with accredited and non-accredited qualifications, which put them on the right track for a fulfilling adult life. Many are progressing to employment, training and apprenticeships, which they would not have thought possible before joining the programme.
	The scouting movement believes,
	“that young people develop most when they are ‘learning by doing’, when they are given responsibility, work in teams, take acceptable risks and think for themselves.”
	I am glad that a movement with such a positive agenda to help young people reach their full potential decided to open its membership to girls and young women 20 years ago.
	On international women’s day, I believe it is right to acknowledge and celebrate the Scout Association, which, across 261 countries worldwide, is giving so much to millions of young people, including more than 60,000 girls and young women in the UK who can have a better life and future because of it.

Amber Rudd: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon). I share her enthusiasm for the scouts and the guides.
	Why is there no international men’s day? I cannot be the only Member to have been asked that, not just by acquaintances but by one or two Members. Let me say that it made me wonder why they think like that, before hon. Members hazard a guess about what side of the argument I might take. Why do they think that? The answer is that there is much to celebrate. If we look at ourselves professionally in the country, 42% of all doctors are women, although the figure for consultants is only 31%; in the law, 60% of current trainees are women, but only 21% of partners and only 22% of judges are women. If we consider the FTSE, only 15% of directors are women—that has already been much trailed and debated in Parliament. However, the figure was 5.8% in 2001—again, we must celebrate the progress that has been made. We are making a tremendous effort in all parties with the team led by Lord Davies on the 30% aim. Of civil servants, 53% are women, although that figure is only 35% at senior level. We have much to celebrate, but major problems remain.
	We have much to celebrate when we consider the young people in our education system. Every year, when GCSE and A-level results are announced, we hear about the segmentation of the genders and how well the young women have done. In 2011, the girls outperformed by the boys at A-level by 78% to 74%. That is encouraging. In exams and at entry level, women are doing well, but in senior positions, they are not doing so well. For me, that is one of the main reasons why we need an international women’s day. We still have the problem of getting women into senior positions. The Suffragettes thought that the answer was to get the vote, but 100 years later we find that that is not the case. We have not achieved that equality, which they would be amazed to see still eludes us.
	The media seem to think that the debate is about whether feminism means wearing high-heeled shoes or pole dancing. In my view, it does not. We must not let that mask the seriousness of what is going on and the economic difference that persists between men and women. Women earn 75p in the pound to every man.

Claire Perry: Does my hon. Friend accept that when we consider a group of women in their 20s who are childless graduates, the gender pay gap has reversed, and that they now out-earn their male counterparts? Something sinister is happening as women go up the career chain—perhaps it is child care. Perhaps we should all focus our efforts on sorting that out.

Amber Rudd: Some people say that we do not need an international women’s day or quotas and so on because they see younger women doing so well at A-level and at entry levels. However, they fall down at more senior levels.

Eilidh Whiteford: Does the hon. Lady agree that gender segregation in the workplace is one of the major reasons why women do not make career progress?

Amber Rudd: I think that the main reason why women do not make real progress is child care. We often debate on the Floor of the House who has better answers to that, but we know that child care went up by 50% under the previous Government. I am longing for more initiatives from the Government to build on those we have because I believe that child care is the big problem that prevents women from getting on.
	This afternoon, we will hear about individual campaigns and particular issues championed by hon. Members. It will be an exciting afternoon. Many women Members of Parliament have got young women from their constituencies shadowing them. I have Amy Gibbons and Alice Williams from Parkwood in Hastings shadowing me today. I know that they are most welcome here.
	We need today to reinforce the message that Members must continually champion women’s lives. Tremendous progress has been made, but the position is still unfair nationally and internationally; the world is still lop-sided. We have an important role to play in highlighting that.
	Internationally, 19% of parliamentary seats are held by women, and only 16 of the world’s directly elected 188 leaders are female. Does it matter? You bet it matters. When colleagues here say, “We don’t necessarily need more women MPs—I can speak for the women”, one might tactfully suggest that they look around the Chamber today to see who is speaking up for the women. From whom will we hear this afternoon about individual issues that matter to women and their communities? The answer is, of course, women.
	What key issues do I hope will be discussed this afternoon? We will hear about pay, child care and opportunity. We heard earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) about safety, which is another key issue for women. So many women are not safe in their houses. The United Nations has said that one in three is likely to be a victim of sexual assault. Violence against women causes more deaths and disabilities in women aged 15 to 54 than cancer, malaria, road accidents and war. Tremendous progress has been made, but we must never let that make us complacent.
	We need international women’s day, not to be just like those countries, such as China, Russia and Vietnam, that make today a national holiday—would not that be
	a nice idea? Some countries make it make it a national holiday for women. Perhaps that would get the attention of some of our colleagues.
	The serious point is that the personal is political. We need to do more to help women, not just in the workplace, although it is important, not just in schools, but in their homes. We must never take our eyes off the ball.

Valerie Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd). Her two constituents will be extremely embarrassed by that name check. It is international women’s day and it is good to see women on both sides of the House. There is cause for celebration, because the Secretary of State for Transport is here, despite her previous duties, and it is good to see her.
	I did not get a chance to speak on the motion in the House yesterday to present an humble Address to Her Majesty the Queen on the occasion of her diamond jubilee, but it is fitting, as we celebrate international women’s day, that she is a woman and she has been—[ Laughter. ] I was going on to say that she has been our figurehead for all that time. The last monarch to celebrate a diamond jubilee was also a woman: Queen Victoria. I add my good wishes to those given yesterday.
	We are here today to praise and celebrate good women—not only those who are well known, whom I will come to, but those who are unknown, such as the single mothers who bring up children against all the odds, and who through no fault of their own must hold two important jobs: as main earners and as home workers keeping a household together. They are an inspiration, just like Aung San Suu Kyi, who spent 15 years under arrest. We must keep raising her case to ensure that whatever happens to her in the elections, she is there to ensure change in Burma.
	I am also inspired by some of the young women I have met who are involved in the “Because I am a Girl” campaign. There are 75 million girls who are not in school. Girls are still denied a basic education. They need to be in school, not carrying water. As Gandhi said, if we educate mothers, we educate the nation.
	What about economic justice? The use of microfinance is important because it empowers women in a financial setting. It is a force for good only when it is properly regulated and women are supported, so that they are not burdened by the debt. We need to do more—the figures are there for all to see—because women’s unemployment is at its highest since 1988 at 1.1 million.
	We must follow Sweden and Norway by getting more women on to boards; I echo what the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye said on that. Following the report by Lord Davies of Abersoch, only 21 women have been appointed to board positions out of a possible 93 posts. The Cranfield institute of management found that 89% of the FTSE 350 companies have no women executives. Widening the pool of talent from which to draw is an engine for growth that will benefit this country.
	There is more to do for women in science. As someone who did a science degree, I am concerned because only 5.3%, or one in 20, of all working women are employed in science, engineering and technology compared with 31.3% of all working men. The most recent figures show that women are only 12.3% of the work force in SET occupations. I am sure that you, Madam Deputy
	Speaker, and other hon. Members will know, because I have raised this in Prime Minister’s Question Time, that the UK Resource Centre for women will lose its funding by 2012. I have taken that up with the Prime Minister and he is going to be looking at it.
	I am confident that all of us across the House will ensure that we support women in future. I was pleased to meet 11 Tanzanian women MPs as part of a cross-party Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation. They were excited to meet and shadow us. Of Tanzania’s MPs, 36% are women, and they were laughing at us because we have only 22%. They want to increase the figure to 50%. Who cares if there are quotas so long as women get the posts and the experience in position? That is all that matters.
	I pay tribute to other women, such as Caroline Adams, who is working across parties to help women MPs in the new and emerging democracies such as Tunisia following Arab spring, because they need support too.
	Finally, not for nothing are the scales of justice held by a woman. It is our right to be treated as equal and to ensure that the next generation continues to make strides in equality. It is not only our right, but our duty, to get justice and equality for the next generation.

Jo Swinson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz).
	I always find these debates a challenge, because we have 90 minutes to discuss the topic of international women’s day—“Half the world. Discuss” in an hour and a half. There is far too much to say, so I wanted to share three stories of three international women whom I have had the pleasure to meet in the past three years.
	In 2010, I went to Grozny with the esteemed Labour peer Lord Judd to investigate the human rights situation in Chechnya. Of all the meetings we had—we met high-profile people, human rights ombudsmen and so on—the most memorable was with a mother who came to see us wearing a thick black woollen coat and a dark pink patterned head scarf. She sat down and placed into our hands photographs of her brother, her son and her daughter, who had all been “disappeared”. She was not sure whether they were rotting in a Siberian jail on trumped-up charges or whether they had been assassinated or executed. What struck me was her bravery. At great personal risk, she came to tell that story to visiting parliamentarians, because she wanted to make sure that others did not have the same experience. That culture of impunity and the human rights abuses in Chechnya are still a source of great distress, but such women are courageously making sure that they tell the story.
	Last year, at an event attended by various hon. Members and organised by the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), I met Selay Ghaffar, who is the Afghan executive director of Humanitarian Assistance for the Women and Children of Afghanistan. She spoke movingly about the battles she is facing to get justice for women and girls who are married off at the age of 12 or 13 and effectively treated as slaves. For the slightest offence, as it were, they can suffer horrendous violence, for which there is no justice or redress. Her work is done at great
	risk. She was on her way to the Bonn conference, which my hon. Friend the Minister attended, to ensure that the voice of women in Afghanistan was heard.
	Just last month, along with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn), I went to Kurdistan in Iraq, where we spoke with women parliamentarians. The Kurdish MP Shawnem Barznji was absolutely inspirational when she spoke about the battle she had fought. She brought together women MPs in Kurdistan, and increasingly the clerics—she ultimately got the support of the President—to tackle violence against women and to get a law passed that would ban female genital mutilation. That was not an easy alliance to build, but it was inspirational to see what was being done. From chatting to women MPs in Kurdistan, I can tell hon. Members that we share many of their frustrations as parliamentarians—they also face confidence issues, which I often hear from women in politics here in the UK.
	Those are just three of the 3 billion or so women in the world, but they are representative. In every country around the world, whether they are journalists, mothers, campaigners, representatives, activists, carers, entrepreneurs or friends, women make that difference. We know that women are suffering. Women bear the brunt of many of the world’s problems, whether from climate change, poverty, conflict or the impact of violence. However, there is cause for optimism. The women whose stories I have described; the women we see every day in our constituencies who make such a fantastic difference in our communities; and the many women who inspired the Arab spring give us cause for hope for the future. Women are making a difference, and it is right that we take the opportunity of international women’s day to celebrate those women and redouble our commitment to equality at home and abroad.

Seema Malhotra: Today is the 101st international women’s day, and I am pleased to join hon. Members in speaking up for the needs of women and our aspirations for the progress of women all over the world. I pay tribute to the many women in my constituency for all their work—I know that women are doing the same work in other constituencies too—in holding together families, businesses and communities.
	We have made progress since the first international women’s day in 1911, which was a time when women in Britain did not even have the right to vote. The third of the millennium development goals, which were adopted as part of the UN millennium declaration in 2000, promotes gender equality and empowerment of women, with three main areas of focus: the ratio of boys to girls in education; the share of women in waged employment; and the seats held by women in national Parliaments. I wish to speak briefly about the third focus and its relationship to the former.
	I am delighted that we can have this debate, because women’s progress in society is also linked to women’s progress in political life. Equality will not be achieved without a focus on increasing female representation in politics. Despite growing numbers of female parliamentarians, equal participation remains far off. At the end of January 2011, the UN estimated that worldwide women held 19% of seats in single or lower Houses of Parliament. This poor statistic is mirrored in Britain, where we make up 51% of the population but,
	as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) mentioned, only 22.3% of the House of Commons—I think that I might be responsible for that 0.3%.
	Since 1918, only 366 women have been elected to the House. In 1997, 101 Labour women were elected, and they changed the game in the UK, leading to a renewed focus on women in Parliament on both sides of the House. They helped to lead the debate and bring a fresh and distinct voice to our politics. Women’s voices helped Labour to increase the length and pay of maternity leave, and introduce paternity leave; to create more than 3,000 Sure Start centres, such as the one in Southfield run by the amazing Noveen Phillips in my constituency, making it easier for mothers to return to work following pregnancy; to introduce equality legislation ensuring that the public sector proactively promoted equality; and to introduce the national minimum wage, which was an outstanding gain for nearly 1 million women.
	It is of serious concern, therefore, that under current Government policies women across Britain are being hardest hit and will bear two thirds of the deficit cuts, which will impact on women’s employment. Indeed, women’s unemployment in Britain is now at its highest level for two decades and has passed the 1.1 million mark.
	I pay tribute to the work of the Fawcett Society and others in keeping the fight for women at the forefront of society. However, if we are to ensure that women’s voices are strong in political debate and decisions making, political education and engagement of women is also vital. I am proud of the work of the Fabian Women’s Network and Young Fabian Women in running new programmes for political education and mentoring to develop understanding and the influencing skills of women in all walks of life. I also pay tribute to other organisations, such as Operation Black Vote, dedicated to increasing representation in politics.
	Without a continued focus on investment by the next generation of politicians, national Parliaments will be all the poorer, and we will have less representation of women’s voices, which is vital if women are to progress in all areas of society. We know that when women thrive, all of society benefits and succeeding generations are given a better start in life. On international women’s day, we are reminded of the imperative and our responsibility to act with renewed urgency to address gender imbalances and women’s access to power across the world in order to see greater economic and social progress.

Claire Perry: It is nice to welcome some members of the brotherhood into the House. I hope that they do not get too bad a headache from all the oestrogen circulating.
	I imagine that my colleagues are waiting to hear me rubbish the Opposition claims that the Government are unfriendly towards women. Although I wholeheartedly believe that that is complete and utter nonsense, I will take these short minutes to do something else. We live in the seventh richest country in the world. Today, most of us travelled here freely, can speak freely, chose this career freely, and can choose how to educate our daughters and access world-class health care throughout our lives. Millions of women around the world do not have those freedoms, and I think, as leading parliamentarians, we should be debating that today.
	I want to focus on Afghanistan. Of course, we cannot mention that country without thinking about the awful tragedy that took place yesterday. As an MP for a constituency with many military personnel, I know how devastating this news will be to the friends, families and communities of those lost. All of us will join in sending our thoughts and prayers to those families. As we heard, however, the mission will continue as planned, and in the process the forces will continue to change unimaginably the lives of people in that country, especially women.
	It is hard to imagine what life was like before the current international security assistance force campaign began. It was illegal to educate women—hence Afghanistan still has only a 13% literacy rate for girls, compared with 43% for men—and there is endemic sexual and domestic violence, with 87% of girls and women having suffered domestic violence. I do not need to remind Members of the appalling age at which many young girls are forced to marry. Afghanistan has the highest lifetime risk of dying in child birth in the world—women have a one in 11 chance of dying in child birth. It is truly unimaginable, stone-age care.
	Progress has not been perfect, of course, but now, after the intervention, 40% of children at school are girls, one quarter of teachers are women, 27% of MPs are female—as mentioned, they are doing better than us on female representation in Parliament—and 72% of women believe that their lives are better now than before.
	I have a personal interest in the matter. Joining me in the Gallery today is Farahnaz Afaq from Afghanistan, along with her school mates and headmaster from Dauntsey’s school. She is an 18-year-old girl from Kabul whose parents left the country when it was clear that they could no longer secure an education for their children. I met her recently in my constituency, and I was gobsmacked. For such a young person to have seen so much, learned so much and acquired such wisdom while travelling the world trying to get an education is absolutely extraordinary. She tells me that she is desperate to return to Afghanistan so that she can take back her learning to the girls and women of that country.
	I will share with the House what Farahnaz said when I asked her what was the most extraordinary thing she has seen since coming to Britain. She said, “I saw a woman driving a bus, and I could not believe that such a thing was possible.” It is that kind of perception that we must always focus on when we talk about women’s rights and progress. We must remember what it is like for so many millions of women around the world.

Margot James: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that the Department for International Development and all our Government agencies do everything possible to sustain some of these improvements in Afghanistan after the troops withdraw in 2014?

Claire Perry: My hon. Friend, as always, presciently anticipates what I was coming to. May I put on the record, though, how proud I am of the Government’s commitment to maintaining the 0.7% level of international aid spending?
	We are at a turning point in Afghanistan. Some 86% of Afghan women now fear the Taliban returning. We have a set draw-down plan for coalition forces, with combat operations ceasing in 2014, and there is a widespread
	fear that this will be an open door for lawlessness and a return to stone-age beliefs when it comes to womankind. What matters even more, then, is political leadership in the peace process, and this is where we can make a difference. Last night, I attended the launch of the parliamentary network on women’s rights in Afghanistan and heard how critical it was that at the upcoming summits in Chicago and Tokyo women’s voices were heard and listened to in establishing the long-term peace and security process in Afghanistan.
	On this day, when we celebrate the progress that women in Afghanistan have made, I want to make a plea to the Government. Will Ministers please take the lead in asking that women are fully represented on the Afghan delegations to the summit? ActionAid has called for 30% representation, but I would like it even higher. Will the Government please work with other international partners to take every opportunity to make reference to the importance that women can and must play in securing a long-term peaceful solution for Afghanistan? I would also please ask all colleagues across the House to put aside their differences and join me in sending a message to the women of that country: we recognise you, we admire you and we will support you.

Barbara Keeley: I am sure that I speak for women on this side of the House when I say that we support the sentiments expressed by the previous speaker.
	I want to talk about women in sport. Sport is an important part of life for many people, but it is something in which girls and women do not participate as much as boys and men. Many people might be unaware of that. Women’s sport accounts for only 5% of the total media coverage of all sport. It is that absence of coverage that perhaps led to the BBC’s “Sports Personality of the Year” programme producing an all-male shortlist for this year’s final, which quite rightly caused a wave of outrage. I hope that the BBC will not make that mistake again, particularly now that many of its sports programmes are made in Salford.
	I am undertaking a Sport England sports fellowship with the Women’s Sports and Fitness Foundation, a great organisation that is helping me to understand the issues of women in sport, so that they can be raised more often—indeed, it is great to raise them here today. We are keen to launch, if we can, an all-party parliamentary group on women in sport. I am pleased that the Cross Bencher Baroness Grey-Thompson has agreed to act as co-chair of the group, because she is a great icon for women’s sport. I hope that many of the Members here today will join the group—I have a form with me, if anyone wants to sign up.
	I hope that the woefully small amount of media coverage received by women’s sport will be rebalanced somewhat during the London Olympics, but we also need a long-term change, because despite the focus on the Olympic legacy, the number of women taking part in sport or physical activity has been declining over the past four years. This is an important issue, because sport can improve health and fitness, while inactivity can lead to obesity and heart disease, and affect quality of life. The latest Sport England survey shows that just 29% of women take part in sport once a week, compared
	with 41% of men. Indeed, the figure for women’s participation has fallen by 2%, from over 31%. That amounts to 6.3 million women, compared with 8.5 million men. The figures also show that 9 million women take part in sport only once a month, compared with 11.5 million men.
	We can therefore say that there is indeed a significant gender gap, and research has shown that it is caused by many different barriers. They include practical barriers, such as lack of time, child care, money or transport, but we know that there are also many personal barriers to participation, such as worrying about what one looks like, not having the right clothing or equipment to play sport, or lacking self-confidence. We know, too, that there are social and cultural barriers. Sport in this country tends to be dominated by a male culture, and there are also restrictions based on gender. In football, for example, girls are not allowed to play in mixed teams after the age of 13 in this country, whereas in countries such as Norway, Sweden and Northern Ireland, there are no age restrictions. Indeed, it took a campaign and many petitions on behalf of girl footballers to get the Football Association to raise the age limit from 11, which it did recently.
	It is significant that of the 12 million women who want to play more sport, 6 million currently play no sport at all. The latent demand for sport is higher among young women than young men. It seems that the current delivery of sport is not meeting women’s preferences. Perhaps that should not surprise us, when we know that 78% of the positions on the boards of sports national governing bodies are held by men; only 22% are held by women. That affects the ability of those sports bodies to understand and meet the needs and preferences of women.
	As for girls, by the age of 15 they are only half as likely as boys to meet recommended activity levels in sport and fitness. I therefore want to talk about the Us Girls project, which is an investment being made by Sport England, as part of the “Active Women” campaign to tackle the gender gap in sport. Us Girls projects will offer young women aged 16 to 25 innovative and engaging ways to become more active in sport and fitness more often. Some 62 organisations will work together to get 30,000 girls and young women across the country participating in sport. That is a great initiative. I hope that Members here today will support Us Girls projects in their constituencies, because more needs to be done to break down the barriers to sport for women, make it more appealing, make women aware of the importance of being active, and develop more healthy and fit role models.
	Let me conclude by mentioning some of those role models: Rebecca Adlington, who won gold in the swimming; Sarah Stevenson, the world tae kwon do champion; Keri-Anne Payne, who won the 10 km open water event; Chrissie Wellington, who last year won her fourth Ironman world championship; and the England women’s cricket team and Charlotte Edwards, who just completed a 3-0 whitewash against New Zealand in the one-day international series. May they never be ignored in competitions ever again.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Dawn Primarolo: Order. We have to start the wind-ups shortly. I am keen to ensure that everybody gets in, and I hope that the Front Benchers might co-operate. If they could take eight
	minutes each, and if I now cut the time limit for Back-Bench speeches to four minutes, we will just about fit everybody in.

Margot James: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), whose interesting speech about women in sport has prompted me to remind the House that Saudi Arabia is bringing a team of athletes to the Olympics that contains no women. We should reflect on the terrible situation that women in that country face in trying to pursue their sporting aspirations.
	Staying with the international theme, I attended a conference on women’s rights in the developing world some 20 years ago. It opened my eyes to the fact that, even in the most abject poverty, women are still not equal to men. The position of women and girls—in terms of their rights and basic needs that are not met —is far worse than that of the men and boys in the same, poor communities. A chance encounter at that conference enriched my life and opened my eyes. Wanjiru Kihoro, the leader of a group of exiled women from Kenya living in London, spoke on behalf of a women’s empowerment group called Abantu, and asked if anyone could provide the group with office space in London. We had some spare space, so a month later they all moved in, and they stayed for about six or seven years.

Amber Rudd: Fantastic.

Margot James: It was. It was absolutely marvellous, and it gave me the opportunity to work directly with those women on their work in Africa. They worked through a network of women’s organisations across the continent, and I went with them to South Africa and Uganda. They wanted me to train women in media skills, lobbying skills and business skills. I was humbled, because what did I know of their situation? Indeed, I always feel that I learnt so much more than the women whom I trained.
	I am pleased that the UN has named the theme of this women’s day as “Empower rural women: end hunger and poverty”. Rural women and girls make up a quarter of the world’s population, and rural girls are twice as likely to be forced into child marriage and experience teenage pregnancy as girls in urban areas. Despite the efforts of many laudable NGOs and charities, the problems of women struggling in poverty have not gone away, and the gains made are often fragile to say the least, although there have been improvements, about which we have heard this afternoon. Some 20 years ago, there was little understanding of the way in which development policies impacted on women and men, and boys and girls differently. Our capacity to make a difference has been hugely improved by the understanding that unless we tackle the cultural and legal obstacles to the education of girls—their health status, the age at which they marry and bear children, their access to land and resources, which should be on an equal basis to men—poverty and discrimination will persist, and persist for entire communities, not just for the women and girls in those communities.
	Microfinance has been successful at providing women with access to the basic raw materials that will enable them to become more independent, and I hope that later in the debate we hear more on those matters, but my time is up.

Helen Goodman: What a pleasure it is to see you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the Chair during this international women’s day debate.
	The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) made some excellent points about the issues in the countries of the south, and my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) made some excellent points about the way in which the coalition Government are trying to turn the clock back to the 1950s in this country. I do not need to repeat what she said, but the policy is backfiring spectacularly, because it is inspiring a whole new generation of feminists to fight for their rights, and I shall tell the House about three of them.
	The first is Lucy O’Sullivan, who has researched women’s representation in government and concluded that women Ministers make a real difference to the effectiveness with which women’s interests are represented in practice. She has also tracked the number of women Ministers whom we have had. During the 1980s and 1990s we were bumping along at 5%; then in 1997 we jumped up almost to 20%; and by April 2010 we had seen a steady increase to the point where 30% of Ministers were women. However, after the May 2010 election that figure crashed by 50%, and now it is at a 14-year low, as a result of this coalition Government.
	The second example of the new feminism is the campaign to increase the number of women in the media. I am sure many hon. Members will have seen the research demonstrating that only 22% of newspaper articles are written by women. Broadcast magazine has a good campaign, called “Expert Women”, to get more women into the media, and the one trade union with a woman general secretary, Michelle Stanistreet of the National Union of Journalists, is holding a meeting next week to organise the fightback to improve women’s representation in the media.
	Colleagues on both sides of the House will know of my concern about the issues of body image—I was pleased to join the all-party body image group that the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) established—and about the urgent need to close down “ano” websites, which encourage young women to starve themselves, so they may be surprised at my third example of the new generation of feminism. It is Cosmopolitan magazine—a collective made up entirely of female journalists. Alongside its “We use the F word—do you?” campaign, it has now set up a petition for equal pay, and I advise all hon. Members to go to its website and sign it. It states that
	“it’s scandalous that the pay gap still exists. Laws on equal pay have existed for more than 40 years yet women working full-time…are still paid on average 14.9% less… At the current rate of change a baby will not achieve equal pay until she is 97 years old. Enough is enough.”
	So will the Government take up its challenge to make equal pay auditing compulsory next year?

Jane Ellison: I do rather worry that today has been a missed opportunity to strike a more bipartisan note. I myself shall not be tribal, although some previous contributors have been.
	I shall make three practical suggestions, loosely linked by the idea of asking awkward questions, which I like to think we are all quite good at. My first theme, which
	Members will not be surprised about, is female genital mutilation, and I thank many Members in the House today and others for their support over the past year, because a lot has happened since I spoke about FGM in last year’s international women’s day debate. I feel that we have a sense of momentum, and I thank Members for that.
	I want to ask for something practical, because we have to keep the issue high on the agenda. The all-party group on genital mutilation has drafted a template letter, which Members can send to health and wellbeing boards or to other commissioning groups, and it asks lots of practical questions about the strategies that have been put in place on safeguarding, commissioning and dealing with women and girls who might be threatened with, or have suffered, FGM. May I urge hon. Members to send that template letter, or their variation on it, to their local groups and boards?
	Even in London, I am amazed at the number of times that people look at me blankly when I raise the issue. Sometimes they do not even know what I am talking about, despite being senior health professionals and so on, so we have to keep pushing; we cannot assume that it is on everyone’s agenda.
	My second practical point is a bit of leap, but one thing that I worry about when I look at the Arab spring, which other hon. Members have touched on, is how women’s rights are not on an upward trajectory but are potentially going in the other direction. There is evidence of that in Egypt, with many clerical groups pushing for the further institutionalisation of FGM there.
	I therefore have a very practical suggestion, which I put into practice when I attended a briefing with one of our ambassadors recently—slightly I suspect to his surprise. We should tell all our ambassadors and high commissioners—wherever they are but particularly those in key countries—to ask why they are not seeing delegations of men and women. If they are seeing only delegations of men, they should politely and nicely—diplomats are very good at being polite and nice—ask why; and if they are not seeing women they should seek out the authentic voice of women. If they see only male delegations and talk only to male politicians, they will not hear the views of the people; they will hear the views of men in those countries. So it is important that the Foreign Office asks those questions of its diplomats.
	My final point is about the way in which we do politics here in the UK, because we can take a lead. We should agree cross-party, and begin a discussion before the next general election, on how we do our politics and with whom we interact, because too often we see community leaders who say that they speak for their community but speak only for men. We female politicians, in particular, should demand to hear the authentic voice of male and female community leaders. There is no point demanding equality in the boardroom if we accept inequality in our community centres.

Mary Macleod: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), who has done an incredible amount of work on FGM, for which I applaud her.
	This is a day for celebrating the contribution of women, as well as for reflecting on what more we can do to support women and girls throughout the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) spoke eloquently about Afghanistan. Only recently there was pressure from Muslim clerics in that country for the adoption of a strict code of conduct, stating that
	“men are fundamental and women are secondary”,
	which underlines the fact that we have much work still to do to protect women’s rights there. I shall focus my few remarks, however, on two areas: first, on building aspiration, whether in schools, business or politics; and, secondly, on protecting women.
	It is important that we build aspiration from a young age. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) said, we, as part of the all-party women in Parliament group, have welcomed many girls to Parliament today, and that has been lovely. From my constituency, I have girls here from The Heathland, Brentford, Chiswick, Isleworth and Syon, Hounslow Manor and Gumley schools, and I hope that between us we can inspire a few of them to become Members.
	It is so important that girls are aware of the full range of opportunities available to them and how they can make best use of their talents. I would like us to do more to encourage girls, especially in science, engineering and technology. Whether it is through setting up more work experience or shadowing events, we can try to build their aspirations and open up a whole world of opportunity to them. The new careers service that will be fully operational by April 2012 will provide high-quality advice to those of all ages online, by phone and in the community, and much work needs to be done there.
	As for women in business, we have already heard about the Lord Davies report. We need to keep up the momentum in focusing on companies, especially regarding the critical lack of women executive directors in the pipeline. Another way to increase the role of women is to support them in setting up their own businesses. The Government have done good work with mentors and the Women’s Business Council, but I would like us to do more to promote and celebrate role models, extend child care support for the self-employed, and continue to work on entrepreneurial skills in schools. As regards the number of women in Parliament, this country is still ranked 49th in the world, and much work needs to be done to change that.
	My final point is about protecting women. That is largely to do with domestic violence, which is totally unacceptable in our society. The Government are committed to tackling this through their document, “Call to end violence against women and girls: action plan”, but a lot still needs to be done. There have been recent campaigns to highlight abuse in teenage relationships, as well as the consultation on stalking and the piloting of Clare’s law. We need to help victims of domestic violence to rebuild their lives.
	Earlier today I was at an event organised by Hestia, which has just produced a report, “From victim to survivor”, highlighting some of the key things that can be done for domestic violence victims. For example, those who are in refuges should be given priority for housing in the local area. Bed and breakfast is not suitable for them; they need to get into longer-term, stable housing. Perhaps councils need to appoint housing officers who have been given training in dealing with
	domestic abuse. There is much that we can do collectively to help to support victims of domestic violence so that they can rebuild their lives and this country can be a better place.

Andrea Leadsom: I am delighted to be the last Back-Bench speaker in this debate.
	Today is a day for celebrating women in all their multiple roles across the world. I want to highlight three women in particular: one who is a carer, one who is a worker, and one who is a leader. Julie Jones, who has just become Tesco Mum of the Year, has adopted five children from her best friend, who sadly died shortly after her own husband. This single mum with three teenage boys of her own has adopted another woman’s five children—what a fantastic thing to do. Congratulations and good luck to her.
	A woman who is a worker is successful 22-year-old Habiba Mentane, who lives in Somalia. Thanks to micro-finance, she has taken her entire family from being nomadic, poverty-stricken people looking for food wherever they go to being farmers who are now able to grow their own vegetables, sell the surplus, and create some kind of a life for themselves. Congratulations to her and to the many thousands of other women like her who support their own family in that way.
	The third person I would like very sincerely to congratulate is Her Majesty the Queen on the occasion of her diamond jubilee. She is a woman who has faithfully served the country for 60 years and presided over a Commonwealth of nations. May she live for another 60 years! I am sure that she will not share that wish, but we would love to keep her for as long as possible.
	There is so much more that could be done for women, and I want to focus on three areas: equal representation, equal pay, and equal status. Worldwide, women hold 19% of parliamentary seats. In Saudi Arabia, a woman cannot vote. Not only that, but they may not drive—we can imagine what that would mean for us in this country. We think that it is pretty tough here because only 22.3% of parliamentarians are women, but at least we can drive, and at least there is a good smattering of sisters in this Chamber; it is wonderful to be part of that. I have so many friends in all parts of the Chamber, and it is truly delightful to be in that position, particularly after 25 years in finance, which unfortunately remains very much a man’s world. So thank you for that, colleagues and friends!
	On pay, 70% of the world’s unpaid labour is performed by women. That is shocking—what on earth is going on? In the UK, we think it is tough because the median income of a full-time working woman is 91% of that of a full-time working man, but that is not as bad as other women in the world have it. There is more to do, but things are not so bad here, and we should celebrate that.
	Status is absolutely key. Other Members have mentioned Afghanistan. I was very shocked to hear about the proposal by the Afghan Council that a man should be allowed to have sex with his wife on every fourth night. In other words, if she says no, he can rape her, and that is official. That is an absolute shocker; it should not be permitted in this day and age or at any time in any country. Rape is all too often a weapon of war, and human trafficking is all too often targeted at women and girls—the most vulnerable in our society.
	The United Nations predicts that teaching girls in Africa to farm would lead to a 20% increase in agricultural yields. This is not just about the rights of girls; it is also about the potential for feeding the world and doing better in the world. There is a very long way to go from where we are right now, but we have made progress. We are extremely fortunate in this country, and I feel extremely fortunate to be part of a very engaged and active parliamentary group.

Kate Green: I start by echoing the remark made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) that it is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair for this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), on their efforts to secure the debate. I also want to thank the Backbench Business Committee for making time for it to take place on international women’s day. It is absolutely right that we should allocate time in the parliamentary calendar to mark this special day each year.
	Hon. Members have rightly drawn our attention this afternoon to a whole range of national and global issues that affect women. It has been clear that common themes and experiences unite all women, here and around the world. They include women’s democratic representation, their economic independence, their access to health and maternity care, their choice of when and whether to form a family, and their right to freedom from fear and violence. Those concerns unite women right across the world, yet still, here at home, there are shortcomings that the Government have an obligation to address.
	Ministers have taken the opportunity today to publish an update to the violence against women action plan, and I welcome the attention and priority that the Government continue to give to this issue. I hope that Ministers will also take the opportunity to read the Labour women’s safety commission report entitled “Everywoman safe, everywhere”, which has also been published to mark international women’s day. The report was published following the establishment of a commission by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) last November, after we had identified concerns that the criminal law was not strong enough to protect women and punish perpetrators, and in response to reports that vital services on which women rely were being closed.
	We were shocked at what we discovered. We identified significant cuts to provisions that keep women safe, and chaos in commissioning resulting in the loss of specialist services and expertise. We found that preventive work in schools, and with perpetrators, was under threat. It is also ironic that, on international women’s day, there should be an announcement of further cuts in the number of railway station staff, which will make women feel more vulnerable when they are out and about. Furthermore, 500,000 street lights are being turned off at night to reduce costs. In identifying those concerns, our commission has been able only to scratch surface. We are therefore calling on the Minister to carry out an audit across the country to assess exactly what is happening in every local community so that she can fulfil her responsibility as a Minister to keep every woman safe.
	I welcome the Government’s announcement today of their intention to sign the European convention. I am concerned, however, that 10 months down the line, they are still only working towards signing it, but it is none the less good to hear that intention confirmed today. In the past, they have tried to water down the convention—for example, by limiting its provisions so that they would apply only in peacetime. There is also a lack of clarity on the Government’s stance on forced marriage. The hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) highlighted some of these issues in her speech. It would be useful if the Minister could clarify the Government’s intentions in relation to signing the convention. When can we expect that to happen and, importantly, when do Ministers intend to give effect to its provisions?
	Ministers have also today announced new provisions on stalking, but campaigners might feel disappointed because it is not clear that the new measures will be any stronger in practice than the terms of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Will the new offence, which is to carry a six-month sentence, be heard only in magistrates courts, or will it be triable either way? Will she explain how the new offence relating to “fear of violence” is different from that covered in section 4 of the existing Act, which the police have confirmed they have had difficulty using to prove the existence of fear of violence? Will the Minister tell us how many convictions occurred last year under that Act and how much more effective she expects the new legislation to be?
	There is still much that we need to do to protect, improve and promote the interests and well-being of women in this country and around the world.

Tom Brake: Does the hon. Lady realise that the issue of women in prison has not been raised in the debate? It is an area on which the Corston report was making good progress—and I hope that this Government will make good progress on it, too.

Kate Green: As I am sure all hon. Members do, I greatly admire the work of the noble Baroness Corston on women in prison. One suggestion she made, which would have drawn this whole agenda together, was the appointment of a champion for women within the penal system. It would be very encouraging—I hope the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) would agree—if Ministers adopted that suggestion, ensuring that an individual was charged with giving priority attention to women in custody and within the penal system.
	Although I welcome today’s debate and the many powerful contributions from hon. Members, I say that women should not have to wait—not even until the 102nd international women’s day—for measures to secure their safety, economic position and well-being. When we come to celebrate next year’s international women’s day, I hope we will celebrate far greater progress for women’s equality—both here at home and right across the world.

Lynne Featherstone: May I say first that the Home Secretary is very sorry not to be here to celebrate international women’s day? She is just back from Jordan and has to attend the JHA—justice and home affairs—meeting.
	I thank my hon. Friends and hon. Members for all their contributions; I hope they will forgive me if I do not enumerate them one by one. International women’s day is a day for celebration, and I want to set out and celebrate what the Government are doing. We have heard many good contributions today and, sadly, some negative ones from Labour Members. Indeed, they have chosen to be very negative about the impacts of decisions that this Government have been forced to take to reduce the record deficit left to us by them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) pointed out, if we do not take action, it will be our daughters who have to pay for it.
	Let me say that we are lifting 1.1 million of the lowest paid workers, more than half of whom are women, out of income tax altogether—and with more to come. We are increasing overall NHS spending by £11.5 billion in real terms. As part of that, we are recruiting over 4,000 new health visitors and doubling the number of places on the family nurse partnership programme by 2015. We are protecting key support for older women—with winter fuel payments, free eye tests, free prescriptions, free bus passes and free TV licences for the over-75s—and permanently increasing cold weather payments to £25.
	Furthermore, we have re-linked earnings with pensions —something called for for years, which did not happen under the Labour Government. We are providing an extra £300 million for child care support under universal credit. Labour Members mentioned child care, yet against this terrible economic background we have maintained the entitlement to 15 hours a week of free education and care for three and four-year-olds. We are also extending the entitlement to 15 hours a week of free education and care for 260,000 of the most disadvantaged two-year-olds. We are funding online and telephone support services for families, and are providing over £28 million for specialist local, domestic and sexual violence support services. [Interruption.] As the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said—[Hon. Members: “Give way.”] I will not give way; I have very little time. I am sorry, but everyone else has had their say and I am going to have mine.
	We are spending £900,000 on helplines and providing £10.5 million over the next three years for rape support centres. Today, my right hon. and learned. Friend the Justice Secretary announced the locations of five new centres. As the shadow Minister mentioned, we are also creating two new specific criminal offences of stalking. We are tabling amendments to the Protection of Freedoms Bill for Lords Third Reading so that those new offences can be enacted as soon as possible.

Yvette Cooper: Will the hon. Lady confirm that there will be two separate offences, and that the first offence will have a maximum sentence of only six months, and that in order for the second offence to carry a sentence of more than six months the police will be required to prove that someone is in fear of violence—which was objected to by the all-party parliamentary group, which said that that approach would not work?

Lynne Featherstone: This measure will be effective. It was welcomed by women and women’s groups across the board at No. 10 Downing street this morning. There will be two offences. One will carry a sentence of up to
	six months, and the other a maximum sentence of five years. This is good news—and it is a great shame that the Opposition do not have the grace to welcome it.
	We are also working on gangs and girls, teenage abuse and forced marriage. We are putting women at the heart of the economy, too, through the Work programme, the new universal credit and the new national careers service, in order to give women the help and support they need.
	The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) is no longer in her place, but I take issue with her statement that there has been an increase in women’s unemployment. There are 50,000 more women in work now than a year ago.
	In November, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced that the Government will provide resources for 5,000 volunteer mentors.

Helen Goodman: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lynne Featherstone: No, I will not.
	Those mentors will help new business start-ups, and there will be help for women in rural areas, too, where we have provided a £2-million fund over the next three years to support women setting up and expanding their businesses. We are establishing a women’s business council as well.
	We are going further. We are extending the right to request flexible working to all, establishing a new system of shared parental leave, and promoting equal pay and good practice in the workplace. With the help of Lord Davies, we are increasing the number of women on company boards.
	Because disadvantage and the stereotyping of women do not start and end in the workplace, we are also tackling how women are portrayed in the media. The Government’s body confidence campaign—for which I know there is support on both sides of the House—is gaining momentum and is now receiving global recognition following an event I hosted on the issue at last week’s UN commission on the status of women. We are also tackling the commercialisation and sexualisation of children, working with a wide range of stakeholders to bring the use of sexualised images in line with what parents find acceptable. I am sure Members on both sides of the House are as sick as I am of women being portrayed either as sexual or servile.
	The coalition Government recognise that investing in girls and women in the poorest countries is transformational both for economic growth and in meeting all the millennium development goals.

Eleanor Laing: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Lynne Featherstone: I will give way, but only briefly.

Eleanor Laing: I simply want to ask my hon. Friend to pay tribute to the work of the UN Women agency, whose inception we celebrated last year, on the 100th anniversary of international women’s day?

Lynne Featherstone: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me to pay tribute to UN Women. Our country is one of the biggest sponsors and supporters of that organisation.
	The Secretary of State for International Development has ensured that girls and women are at the heart of the UK’s international development programme. We can all be very proud of that, and I am extremely proud of what I can do through my role as champion for tackling violence against women overseas, whether that involves going to Bonn to raise issues to do with Afghanistan, or raising issues in respect of the Arab uprising. There is still much to do in tackling forced marriage, female genital mutilation and so-called honour crimes, but I know that Members on both sides of the House support taking action against those practices.
	We are taking some very difficult decisions, but they are necessary decisions that are required to bring our country back from the brink. We are making sure that the cuts are shared fairly and that the most vulnerable are protected, and we are going further to ensure that women have a voice and are treated with fairness and respect in the workplace and in society so that they can be a vital part of our future economic growth, and we are working internationally with allies across the world so that women can be part of the world’s future.

Fiona Mactaggart: This has been a powerful debate, and many diverse points have been raised, ranging from sport to Afghanistan to women’s economic power. It will not be possible to address them all. When I introduced the debate, Government Members were provoked by my approach, yet during the debate we have proved that we are indeed tribal, but we are for the tribe of women. The overwhelming majority of contributions have shared a series of values that say that it is not good enough just to assume that a particular policy will meet the needs of women but that we actually need to examine things carefully. Such an approach was demonstrated, for example, in the intelligent analysis by the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) of the possible risks of trying to deal with forced marriage carelessly.
	I am, in a way, therefore disappointed by the Minister’s summing up. Hon. Members would have been able to tell from my initial remarks that I profoundly disagreed with it, because she made the easy mistake of saying that when we have done something, we have achieved it—that is not the case, as we all know. We can be proud of some bits; I am glad that the Government have made some announcements—for example, those made today about tackling violence against women, which will include some improvements. That is great, but it is not good enough for us all to be satisfied with minor improvements and small changes, or with a system where, as unfortunately has happened in the argument about dealing with the deficit, women have tended to be the victims. Such a situation has occurred because the voices of women have not been around the table.
	There are very many strong, intelligent and powerful women in this Chamber today. I say to all of them, whatever party they support and whatever side they are on, that they should make sure that the voices of women are heard and that they should analyse every policy that is put before them through the lens of the difference it will make to women. If a policy advances the cause of women, it advances the cause of the whole society. If a policy advances the cause of women, it promotes the welfare of children. If a policy advances
	the cause of women, we actually make a more civilised and better society in Britain today, and with that we will have an international women’s day truly to celebrate.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered the matter of International Women’s Day.

Adult Social Care

[Relevant document: The Fourteenth Report from the Health Committee, Social Care, HC 1583.]

Sarah Newton: I beg to move,
	That this House believes there is an urgent need to reform the current system of providing and paying for the care of adults in England and Wales; recognises that social care, unlike the NHS, has never been free at the point of need irrespective of income; notes the central role of informal carers in the provision of care; welcomes the Coalition Agreement pledge of reform and legislation; further welcomes the plans for better integration between adult social care services and the NHS; welcomes the extension of personal budgets; urges the Government to ensure that fairness is central to reform, including access to advice, advocacy, assessment of need, care services as well as funding options; recognises the need to break down the barriers to portability; and further urges the Government to publish its White Paper as soon as possible, and to bring forward legislation.
	I am pleased that both the care Minister, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) and the shadow Health Secretary will be joining us today, and that they have entered into talks to agree a way forward on the reform of our social care system. It is vital that today we show our Front-Bench teams just how much support there is in all parts of this House for their important work. Both teams need to know how important this Parliament feels it is to continue and conclude the talks, so that a White Paper and Bill can be produced as soon as possible.
	Today’s debate should also be about our vision: our vision to enable adults living with disability or a chronic illness, or those people who are frail in their later life, to have the support they need to live as full a life in their community as possible. That is something that concerns us all, as it strikes at the heart of the values of our society. There are Members here today who have a lifetime of experience, inside and outside Parliament, tackling the issues we will be discussing today, so I will keep my remarks short to allow their valuable contributions to be made.
	Central to this debate is the person who needs care and the people around them supporting them, principally their family members, close friends and neighbours, and the wider community. Of course, care provided by nurses, care workers and other professionals is vital, too. In the few minutes available, I shall focus on the care of the elderly, as colleagues with greater knowledge than I will talk about the care of younger adults, those with chronic illnesses and those living with disabilities. Too often in debates about social care we delve straight into the design details of the services provided by local and national Government. Often, such services were designed many years ago, in response to a very different society, when people died of illnesses and conditions that are now lived with; a society where people lived shorter lives. One of the greatest achievements of the 20th century was a significant increase in life expectancy and the challenge of the 21st century is to respond and to redesign care and support services so that they are fit for this century and the next. That is important not only for the people who need them now but for the young people who have already been born who will make it into the 22nd century.
	Let us be honest: if we were designing services to support families who care for their elderly and disabled family members, would we have designed the system we have today? Despite the undoubted good intentions of previous Parliaments, our system has developed in fits and starts since the 1920s. It is disjointed and does not deliver joined-up help for the cared for or for carers and it can be utterly frustrating for care and health professionals.
	It has been estimated that a total of £145 billion a year of public money is spent on the elderly in social care, NHS and welfare payments. That is £3,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. It does not appear to me that elderly people and their carers are receiving the quality of services and care that such a sum could provide if it were spent differently and more efficiently.

Harriett Baldwin: Is my hon. Friend going to make the point that this problem will keep on increasing? We are all living longer and one in three girls born today can expect to live to the age of 100.

Sarah Newton: Yes. As I mentioned, it is a great achievement that people are living longer, but that will obviously present huge challenges in adapting our society as people live for so much longer.
	Unfortunately, growing old or living with an illness or disability is frightening to too many in our country today—frightening both to the people involved and to their loved ones who support them. There is fear about physical and mental frailty, about the quality of care they will receive from the NHS and social services and about whether they will have to pay and how they will afford to do so. We need to alleviate as much of that fear as possible by creating services and a way of paying for them that are fair and easily understood by people of all ages, that deliver high-quality care and support to carers and in which those who are employed feel respected and appreciated.
	To achieve that aim requires a vision and a plan that everyone understands. That plan should be fair and should offer a route from where we are today to where we want to be. It will then require all political parties, over a period of time, to implement it. That will deliver the lasting, consistent and sustainable reform that despite many good intentions has eluded all Governments for many years.
	I believe that the Government have recognised the challenge and taken a number of steps forward. There is a pledge in the coalition agreement to reform care services and funding and, following the excellent work of the Law Commission and the commission led by Andrew Dilnot, we have been promised a White Paper this spring and a Bill soon after. That process will very much depend on the determination of the Opposition to work constructively with the Government.
	The Government have also ensured that while a longer term solution is found to the current funding issues more money is being given to councils, and they have committed £2 billion. The Health and Social Care Bill will enable the integration of social and health care and, through the health and wellbeing boards, local commissioning of new care pathways will be made possible. I have seen some highly effective piloting work
	in Cornwall through the “Changing Lives” approach to joined-up services, which is based around the person and their carers.
	The Government have launched a carers strategy and a dementia strategy with funding attached, but it is very frustrating that the money provided for those services is not always finding its way to the people who need it most. I am a passionate supporter of localism and returning power from Westminster to people and their communities. I believe that services for people in Cornwall should be designed and delivered in Cornwall, but we must recognise that this is a revolution. Although some professionals in the NHS and councils are relishing the new opportunities, some are not, as many of them have served in these important public services for years and are used to the command and control management of the past. It is difficult for some people to change and these are big cultural changes.
	At a time when large-scale efficiency savings are needed in the services that support older people, reform is more important than ever. The nurses, social workers and carers I know are all motivated to deliver a high-quality service but I think Ministers will need to give clear direction about the commissioning of new pathways—new pathways that explicitly deliver integrated and joined-up care and new pathways developed on the evidence from the innovative work being provided not only by doctors, nurses and social workers but in partnership with other organisations such as Age UK, Macmillan and a host of other not-for-profit organisations. Within the new framework of outcomes, new outcomes should enable better integration.
	Those new outcomes and pathways will need funding. We know that for every £1 spent on social care, £2.65 is saved from the NHS budget, so not addressing the inefficient split of funding between the NHS and social care will mean that we continue to waste more and more money.

Mary Macleod: On funding, does my hon. Friend agree that we should look at having more respite care for carers, especially elderly carers, some of whom do a 24/7 job and need extra support?

Sarah Newton: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which has been addressed in the carers strategy.
	Each year we should aim to use more NHS money on social care, and more money from the NHS budget could be given to councils for the integration of services led by health and wellbeing boards. Eventually, I would like to see the pooling of budgets. Social Care has never been free at the point of need, and we know that the NHS will always be free at the point of need irrespective of anybody’s ability to pay. That is enshrined in the Health and Social Care Bill. Despite that, however, most people do not think they will have to pay for care and it can come as a dreadful shock, especially to the one in 10 people aged over 65 who end up paying more than £100,000 for care. Dilnot came up with a framework of shared and capped costs for individuals needing social care—shared costs between the individual and the state. I am sure that framework is receiving a great deal of attention from the Front-Bench teams, but I expect that however well the cross-party talks are going, it will take several years to introduce such a system if
	agreement can be reached. In the mean time, there is an urgent need to design a fairer system based on shared responsibility to pay.
	There are uncontroversial steps that would not require substantial new resources and that could be taken now as part of a longer term plan. The legal framework and assessment processes that are used to decide who is entitled to what help could be sorted. We also need to fix the means test that we use to decide what we expect people to pay. That would help families to understand what help will be available and who needs to pay for what. Families would then be able to plan accordingly. The Government could ensure that people had access to independent advice on the best way of planning and paying for care and they could bring in a universal deferred payment scheme that would tackle the issue that so many people dread—selling their home to pay for residential care during their lifetime.

Margot James: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on all the work she does on this issue. Under the present system, people do have to sell their homes sometimes; does she agree that in such cases it would be far better if some of the accommodation were available to purchase on a leasehold basis so that the individual would still have an asset to pass on?

Sarah Newton: That is an extremely interesting idea, and I would expect no less from someone with such knowledge in this area. I am sure the Minister will want to take that point on board.
	Going back to means-testing, we really need to face up to one of the biggest problems facing families—the meanest of means tests in this country: the test for residential care. Making the simple change of raising the upper threshold of the means test to £100,000 would benefit those on modest incomes who are heavily penalised under the current system. It would enable families who have worked hard all their lives and accumulated relatively modest assets—often the first generation of their family to do so—to have something to pass on to their children and grandchildren. It is an understandable and human desire to want to help the next generation. That change would cost £100 million. In this economic climate, such a figure might be too much all at once, but a staged increase in the upper limit would be a step in the right direction.
	We are taking this approach to delivering the excellent policy of increasing the personal allowance for taxpayers to £10,000. Apart from spending NHS money more efficiently, there are other sound economic reasons for redirecting public money into social care. While the vast majority of care is given freely, more than 1.5 million people are employed in providing care. We need to recognise better the valuable and challenging work they do. I know that the Minister is doing good work on training and quality standards. Many care workers are paid low wages, so investment in this sector would have the direct impact of putting more money into the pockets of some of the poorest paid workers.
	We also need to enable more working age informal carers to combine their caring responsibilities with paid employment. This is even more important as the pension
	age rises. Much emphasis is put on enabling working age parents to care for their children and remain in paid employment—with flexible working, help with child care costs and financial support through the tax system. We need to put as much emphasis on enabling working age people with other caring responsibilities to remain in employment. Otherwise, we are going to have ever-increasing out-of-work benefit costs to pay.
	While I do believe that the Government are starting to develop the processes that could deliver better and fairer access to services and higher quality care, bolder and more determined action is needed to enable more rapid change. I hope that the Minister and the shadow Secretary of State for Health will listen carefully today and bring back to Parliament a shared vision and a clear plan on how together we as a country and as a society are going to create a good place for us all to grow old in.

Barbara Keeley: May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on leading the debate and on the way in which she has just opened it. It is good to work with her on the all-party group on social care. In debates such as this we work together to ensure that social care receives the focus that it needs to have in the House.
	I want to discuss two aspects of the future of social care. The first is the current crisis in care and the need to bring in extra resources to close the funding gap. The second is the recommendations of the Dilnot report, which the hon. Lady has already touched on, which mainly focused on dealing with the catastrophic cost of sustained high-level care and support.
	On the funding gap, the Minister told me and the Health Select Committee recently:
	“We don’t accept the position that there is a gap. We have closed that gap in the spending review.”
	However, Age UK’s “Care in Crisis” report says:
	“This year spending on older people’s social care in England has fallen by £500 million and the funding gap is growing. … We project that by 2011-13 the Government would need to spend £1 billion more than this year to stop the situation getting any worse. … The current system is at breaking point.”
	Research by Age UK showed that 82% of local authorities now provide care only to those with substantial or critical needs. Fewer than one in five local councils still provide care for those with moderate needs. I have to say I am happy that that includes my own local authority of Salford.
	The Economic and Social Research Council centre for population change has looked at the issue of unmet need for social care. It concludes that, regardless of the data source used
	“there is significant unmet need for care among older people.”
	For example, 66% of people aged over 65 who need help with bathing were not receiving any support. That figure was based on data from 2008 and since then we have had front-loaded cuts to local authority budgets. I am sure that, although there is no up-to-date estimate, there are greater levels of unmet need than the figure I have given.
	The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services has reported £1 billion of cuts to adult social care budgets in 2010-11, with further cuts predicted for next year.
	This week many of us were involved when about 1,000 campaigners and 60 organisations lobbied Parliament for the urgent reform of social care and an end to the care crisis. For the first time, thousands more who could not attend Parliament joined the lobby online. A statement from those care and support organisations to MPs and Ministers said:
	“Our social care system is broken. It cannot cope with a rapidly ageing population and positive impact of people living longer with illness and disability. Those who use our social care system can no longer tolerate a social care system which leaves many with no support and others with poor quality services. The public are angry that they can face huge care charges and end up losing all their savings or being forced to sell their home.”
	One of the 1,000 people who came to Parliament to lobby MPs was a deaf-blind woman from Manchester who got up at 5 am to travel down because she said she was so worried about the future of social care. The Care and Support Alliance said that MPs heard personal experiences from people who need care but are receiving none, disabled people unable to access the support needed to live independently, families paying huge bills for care and carers pushed to breaking point.
	I wanted to test the situation in my local area before the debate. Over the past few days I checked with three organisations that support older people and carers in Salford and the neighbouring area in Greater Manchester. This drew a depressing but familiar picture of services worsening, mainly due to budget cuts, but also due to cuts and organisational changes brought about by the NHS reforms. A staff member at Parkinson’s UK in Greater Manchester told me about her clients, people who have worked hard all their lives but are now struggling to pay for services that are essential to them. In some cases she had to apply for grants to help people with Parkinson’s buy a profiling bed or even pay off debts.
	The staff member told me about a couple struggling to pay for the care needed by the husband, who has Parkinson’s. To help get him out of bed and dressed costs £22 an hour, and having someone sit with him while his wife does the shopping costs £11 an hour. Another carer of someone with Parkinson’s and dementia had her respite care cut from two weeks a year to one week. She feels that she cannot cope without those two weeks of respite. The staff member also told me that budget cuts mean that people with Parkinson’s can wait for a year for a stair lift, and she knows one man who has to go to bed at 7 pm because later in the evening his mobility gets worse and he cannot manage the stairs.
	The staff member also told me that NHS efficiency targets mean that GPs are switching to cheaper brands of drugs for patients with Parkinson’s, but many of these are less effective. One person she told me about was admitted to hospital after becoming ill following a switch to a cheaper, less-effective medicine. The hospital staff had told her to “be firm with her GP” and insist on the more expensive brand. We have to be realistic that that is a difficult thing to do. NHS budget cuts in the local area have meant the loss of the community matron service, a service that was used by Parkinson’s UK staff for many of their clients but has now ended. In Salford—I have raised this point before—the primary care trust ended the pilot of active case management for people with long-term conditions, which was proving popular and effective.
	Locally, Age Concern has told me that it has now lost the funding for a “Friends for Life” pilot scheme, which
	was part of the national dementia strategy. Its dementia support service has a planned income reduction of 40% over three years. It has had to make seven staff redundant and reduce its dementia support. Funding for day centres is being reduced by one fifth and will then be ended due to the switch to direct payments from individual budgets. We all support personalisation and individual budgets, but not if it is a cover for cuts. I was disturbed to hear of a couple of cases where that is happening. In one case I was told about, a carer who had previously had two hours of respite care was given a budget of £9 and told, “Do what you want with the money.”
	Our carers’ centre manager in Salford told me of her own experience of such cuts, this time to the personal budget of a family member she cares for with a learning disability who lives in Sheffield. Following what she described as a “fairly perfunctory” re-assessment that was done solely with the person with the learning disability, with no input from a carer or guardian—that is an important point—the personal budget was cut by £10,000. In that case, the carers’ centre manager was able to lodge a complaint and get legal help from a community care lawyer, but she knows that such an intervention would not be possible for other carers. These examples are what we mean when we talk about a care system in crisis.
	However, those are not the worst examples. As I mentioned earlier, we know that some 800,000 older people are left without basic care. They have been described as
	“lonely, isolated and at risk”.
	Those are the words of 60 experts in social care in their recent letter asking the Government to make social care reform a top priority. We therefore know that the problem of unmet need is getting worse. Much of the additional burden will fall on unpaid family carers, many of whom are already overburdened. Statistics from the NHS Information Centre show that the proportion of carers providing more than 50 hours a week has doubled in the past 10 years. I think that that is the level at which it can be counted as a 24/7 caring job, as was discussed by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod).
	Many organisations have sent us briefings for this debate. There is a consistent call for a solution to the care crisis. Carers UK calls for the capped costs model that the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth talked about. It sees a cap on costs as essential. It favours the cap being set at £35,000, which it feels would give carers and families the ability to plan for care arrangements and costs, and provide an opportunity for the development of care insurance products. I agree with that assessment and would caution against setting the cap at a higher level, such as £60,000, which has been discussed in the media. That is the value of some properties in Salford, so it could mean a family losing the entire value of their home, which would be wrong.
	Carers UK believes that if families know that costs will be capped, they might be more willing to buy care and support earlier. That would help to promote independence and reduce the pressure on carers, which can result in ill health, giving up work or reducing working hours. It is thought that it will be harder to produce that shift in behaviour and move towards a new market in insurance products without a capped costs model.
	Care and Support Alliance members argue for an additional £5 billion to be put aside over the next three years to meet the growing demand for social care. The cases that I have mentioned show that there is a clear need for additional resources to meet the growing demand, address the unmet need and tackle the shortfall in resources that has been growing for some years.
	The Dilnot commission was given the task of making recommendations on how to achieve an affordable and sustainable funding system for care and support. Its report confirmed what has been said repeatedly for years: the current system is unfair and unsustainable, and without reform it will deliver ever-poorer outcomes for individuals and families. That includes the 1,000 people we saw here this week. The report also said that the funding of social care is inadequate and that people are not receiving the care and support that they need.
	Although we may not have time to discuss this today—I certainly will not—the provision of advice and information is of poor quality and very limited. People struggle to find financial information and advice, and there is little information and advice for carers. Worst of all—perhaps we can understand this—because the system is complex and difficult to understand, most people do not plan for, or even think about, the future care provision that they may need.
	There is much consensus around the capped costs model. There is support for setting a cap at £35,000 and, as the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth mentioned, for setting an asset threshold for means-tested support at £100,000. There are other important aspects, such as the need for national eligibility criteria and the need for local authorities to meet the eligible needs of carers. I think that those points are equally important. What still needs to be discussed, and I am not sure whether we will get into it today, is how to pay for the capped costs model and the additional resources that are needed to close the funding gap.
	Care and Support Alliance members believe that there is a public appetite for reform. I think that we must take the debate across the country and ensure that the issues and solutions that I have talked about start to be debated. I have spoken about social care issues for the past seven years and I believe that they are now well understood. The 60 organisations that have lobbied Parliament this week have been lobbying on these issues for many years. The people in those organisations and the people they represent are tired of being consulted on the future of social care. What they want is action.

Andrew George: I congratulate my colleague on the Health Committee on her contribution to the report on social care. Does she agree that underlying the issue of care in crisis is an issue with the work force, who often work on the minimum income, are poorly regarded and are subjected to a lot of unfavourable reporting in the press? Does she think that we take them for granted when we look at the overall sector?

Barbara Keeley: Indeed, the work force issues are very important. I will not have time to discuss them today, but perhaps other Members will. The things that we hear about, such as tasks being reduced to one-minute periods and visits being cut down to very short periods,
	must make it a distressing and difficult job. We also have to recognise that personalisation leads to people working in an isolated way. Whereas before they might have been part of a local authority work force, they are now individually employed by care agencies and may not see anyone else. There are some new issues for us to consider, including the one that the hon. Gentleman mentions.
	In 2009, after much consultation, my party brought forward plans to establish a national care service. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State knows, Labour’s proposals for funding social care were treated as a political football, and there were some regrettable political attacks on them during the general election. That was unfortunate, and we cannot allow it to continue. I congratulate him on going back into the cross-party talks with great willingness, which must have been difficult knowing what happened to him during the election. We must work to achieve consensus across parties and across the country, because the issues that I have mentioned are becoming more pressing than ever before.
	I believe I have found a unique way to link two speeches today, both of which you have heard, Madam Deputy Speaker. I talked earlier about women in sport, and this Sunday I will be running in a 10 km race to raise funds for Age UK’s “Spread the Warmth” campaign, which is aimed at making life better for older people in winter and avoiding needless deaths from the cold.

Paul Burstow: I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for granting it and my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) and for Stourbridge (Margot James) on securing it and leading it so well.
	I have chosen to speak early in the debate because I want to spend the majority of it listening to colleagues. I undertake to respond to their questions in writing if necessary, to ensure that we have a clear record of the Government’s position on these issues.
	I pay tribute to the Care and Support Alliance. The lobby that it organised this week was a truly powerful event, because of the testimony of individuals who made the journey to Westminster to lobby their MPs. I had the pleasure of spending an hour being cross-examined by a large number of people on that lobby, and I found it a really useful opportunity to talk about social care.
	I have been a Member of Parliament for more than 15 years and raised the issue of social care reform throughout that time. For far too long, it has been left in the “too difficult to do” drawer, and it is now due attention from the House and the Government. We must not make the mistake of putting it back in that drawer, which would be dangerously short-sighted.
	What does high-quality social care mean? It means helping people to stay healthy, independent and out of hospital. As the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) said, it means reducing pressure on the NHS, but above all it means helping people to live the lives that they want—long, safe and comfortable lives with the maximum possible independence. That is why the coalition Government are determined to tackle social care, and we have already set to work on doing
	just that. We established the Commission on the Funding of Care and Support, chaired by Andrew Dilnot, to make recommendations on how we could develop an affordable and sustainable funding system for social care. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth outlined those recommendations.

Kelvin Hopkins: There is constant emphasis on the importance of independence and of people living their own lives, but many people who depend on care want company. Some would prefer to live in decent, appropriate care than to be left on their own in their home and not cared for appropriately. Is the Minister not aware of that?

Paul Burstow: I am most certainly aware of that. Social isolation is a huge burden on the individuals affected by it and has huge consequences for health care. That is why, when I talk about independence, I also mean interdependence—the recognition of the value of family support and carers, and of the fact that people need to be active in their community throughout their life. Social care has a role to play in enabling people to do just that, rather than become institutionalised in their own home or a care home. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman about that.
	The Dilnot commission made a number of recommendations on the development of a system such as I mentioned, and my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth described them well. In the spending review, we allocated an additional £2 billion by 2014-15 —£7.2 billion over the spending review period as a whole. In November 2010, we also set out our vision for social care reform, including the roll-out of personal budgets and greater personalisation. I agree that we need to ensure that that is genuinely about how we enrich people’s lives, not just an opportunity to reduce the available resources to individuals. We are also investing £400 million over four years to help to give carers much needed breaks. We are ensuring that the NHS is held firmly to account for delivering the money in the coming year by making sure that it has to account directly to carers’ organisations locally, and agree with local authorities the plans to provide breaks, spell out how many there will be and the size of the budget for that purpose.
	It is also important to dispel a myth about social care, which has been hanging around for far too long—that, in some way, it is just like the NHS and free. As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth said, it is not free and never has been. If people assume that the state will pick up the bill, they are unlikely to prepare themselves. If they do not prepare and they need help, the impact can be truly devastating for them and their families: life savings wiped out, family homes full of memories sold off, and thoughts of a comfortable retirement turned to dust.
	We therefore recognise the problem, which is getting worse. Our population is ageing, and that should be a cause for celebration. Too often, debates about ageing in our media are couched in terms of demographic time bombs and the like. However, the current care and support system is not fit for purpose. I agree with the Care and Support Alliance about that. It is broken, and patching and mending it is no longer acceptable.
	However, reforming social care will not be easy. As has been said, it will require bold thinking and difficult decisions. The Dilnot commission shed much needed
	light on the reality of social care funding. Soon, we will publish a White Paper and a progress report setting out our response to the recommendations.

Barbara Keeley: Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us on what is meant by “spring”. There is speculation that spring might extend to May, June or July. When I was in government, I spent a lot of time answering questions about what spring meant in relation to Government reports. Will he tell us what it means now?

Paul Burstow: On that basis, the hon. Lady knows the answer that I would give and I shall therefore not tire her by saying what she would have said if she were in my place. We are anxious to publish a White Paper as soon as we can in a way that ensures that we have successful dialogue with the Opposition on funding. Those two matters are interdependent.
	We are considering not just funding reform, but the legal structure that governs social care, which must be updated. The Law Commission has done a sterling job of making recommendations for replacing the patchwork that has built up in the past 60 years with a legal framework fit for the 21st century. A new social care law will bring clarity where today there is a complicated and confusing system, facilitate personalisation and support staff, service users and carers.
	Beyond that, we need high-quality, integrated care, which focuses on early intervention, prevention and the needs of the individual. Better care is about not just spending more money, but spending it much more wisely. The Health Committee made that point powerfully to us. Some councils do that well; others could do it better. That is why the Government are jointly funding with the Local Government Association work to support councils to release savings while improving the care and support they provide.
	The Health and Social Care Bill will foster far greater integration between the NHS, social care and, importantly, other public services. Health and wellbeing boards will bring together democratically elected local councillors, directors of children’s services, adult social services and public health services, clinical commissioning groups, and, importantly, the public through Healthwatch, to improve services in our communities. They will identify local needs now and for the future and, importantly, be accountable for setting the strategy to meet those needs. The unprecedented transfer of money from the NHS to social care is creating new opportunities for joint working.
	However, we have a long way to go to improve the quality of social care, especially for older people. Clinical audits on fractures or continence care; the parliamentary inquiry into the human rights of older people in health and social care, and damning reports by charities such as the Alzheimer’s Society and Age UK all point to the fact that health and social care in England is far from universally excellent. In too many cases, it is very far indeed from being excellent. There can be no excuses and no mitigating circumstances. Yes, there are excellent staff working in our services, but some staff need to be challenged, and some need to leave the profession because they do not do the right thing. We need to be honest. We need to applaud the good, but to shine a light where there is no good.
	It is not a matter of not having enough staff. In some places—

Andrew George: Will the Minister give way?

Paul Burstow: I will in a moment, because I made a point in direct response to my hon. Friend.
	In some places, full staffing complements perform badly, while places under considerable staffing pressure perform exceptionally well.

Andrew George: rose —

Paul Burstow: I will give way to my hon. Friend, who I know works hard on these matters.

Andrew George: I am very grateful to the Minister, whom I respect. Poor standards need to be rooted out wherever they exist, whether among the lowest-paid care workers or the highest-paid managers, but does he accept that the care system is based on workers who work antisocial hours, who are often untrained and unsupported, and whose salaries are appallingly low?

Paul Burstow: I accept that we have a largely untrained work force—or they are not as trained as they should be. This is the first Government to set down the need for training standards for health care assistants and care assistants. We have signed off the funding to allow Skills for Care and Skills for Health to do that essential work for the first time.
	On transparency, we need to know what is happening within caring organisations. Transparency is vital to improving the quality of services on offer and to holding providers and commissioners to account. As is happening already in the NHS, we need more information and data to improve the quality of social care. Without those, how can local authorities, individuals or their families hold providers to account?
	That is why we published the adult social care outcomes framework last April, which was developed in partnership with the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, the Local Government Association and others. I thank all those involved in developing that new tool, which has the potential radically to improve the quality of social care in England. The outcomes framework will enable local authorities to hold providers to account, and in turn enable local people to compare and contrast performance on social care in one part of the country with performance in another, and to hold their councils to account.
	In the past, the emphasis has been on patients and people who use services bending to the convenience of service organisations. That must change, and it must do so faster than ever before. By focusing on the individual and integrating services around them, we can begin to break down institutional barriers that for too long have held back the improvements in care that the country needs.
	Many people’s lives could be so much better. We are right to celebrate the fact that our population is living longer, and often living longer better, but we can do much more to ensure that we add quality to the extra years that the success of our health and other systems have delivered. That is why the best social care means the difference between a life of dependency and life lived with independence and dignity—the difference between a life endured and a life enjoyed, or a life in which potential is not realised or unlocked and a life in which it is.
	Social care is among the most pressing issues facing us today—I believed that when I first came into the House. I hope that, during this Parliament, this Government, working in partnership with others and the Opposition on funding, can reach a consensus that can be delivered, and that we can translate that into sustained action. That is how we can do something that has not been done for 60 years.
	We have inherited laws that are out of date, which make it impossible for some people to navigate their way around our social care system. It is time to change. That is why the Government will publish our White Paper and set out our plans for legislation. I look forward to more debates on adult social care as time goes by, but today I look forward to listening to colleagues, and will respond to further questions.

Andy Burnham: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on bringing this important debate to the House. They make an impressive and persuasive double act for this most important of causes, and are right to challenge both Front-Bench teams as this is without doubt the biggest unresolved public policy challenge facing the country. So far, between us, Parliament has failed to face up to it, and as others have said the result is a developing care crisis in England.
	We must all bear our share of the responsibility for allowing that to happen, but the best response is to resolve to find lasting solutions. This century of the ageing society demands it, and the earlier we do it, the better. If we do not, to Beveridge’s five giants of the last century we might add a sixth for the 21st century: fear of old age. We cannot let that happen, and people are looking to us all to put point scoring aside and to work constructively to find a solution. In that spirit, I welcome much of what the Minister said.
	I commit the Opposition to doing the same, and as a sign of our intent, the Leader of the Opposition has appointed a member of the shadow Cabinet with specific responsibility for these matters. I refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall). The House might have noticed that she is not here today. I send her apologies. [Interruption.] The Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), is absolutely right. She has a good excuse: she is in Leicester with Her Majesty the Queen at the commencement of the diamond jubilee celebrations; otherwise of course she would have been here. I hope that I am an acceptable substitute.

Simon Burns: You are.

Andy Burnham: Thank you.
	I wish to demonstrate today Labour’s commitment to this issue. The House might remember, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South said, that I made reforming social care my top priority as Health Secretary, and I did that for a very personal reason: I have never forgotten my grandmother’s dispiriting journey through England’s care system and the battles that my mum fought to preserve her dignity. The day
	I visited her in a nursing home near where I lived to find that her engagement ring had been wrenched off her finger and stolen was the day that I knew something was seriously amiss with how we looked after our older people.
	We all have our own personal experiences, and we all know that we have to do much better. Looking after other people’s relatives, particularly the most vulnerable in our society, should be one of the most highly valued and respected callings there is, but sadly the reverse is the case. England’s care provision is too often low status and low wage, with about 70% of the work force having no qualifications and many earning at or around the national minimum wage.
	With every year that passes and every year that we do not achieve a lasting and better solution to the funding of adult social care, the cruel unfairness in the system gets worse and the quality of service diminishes even further. People are paying larger charges, and the most vulnerable, as the Minister said, are losing everything. Families are being wiped out physically, emotionally and financially by the situation, carers are under intolerable pressure and councils are struggling to cope with the demographic pressures.
	But there is hope. I did not think that the White Paper and cross-party talks that I led before the election achieved as much as they might, but perhaps I was wrong, because they might have prompted the Government to establish the Dilnot commission, on which we congratulate them. We also congratulate Andrew Dilnot and his commission on the intelligent way they addressed their brief and delivered a solution that politicians on all sides can work with. It provides a basis for progress, and we should take it.
	Since then, we have also had the Health Select Committee’s excellent report on social care, which made a persuasive case for integration. At present, the social care debate is happening in isolation from the debate about NHS reform, which is unhelpful. We are looking at a Bill called the Health and Social Care Bill, but there is not much about social care in it. Indeed, it is slightly odd that a Bill of this name is going through Parliament, yet a social care White Paper is not due until May, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South said. It is essential that we start viewing reform of social care and the NHS as two sides of the same challenge—how to provide integrated, people-centred and preventive care in the century of the ageing society.
	The Committee’s recommendation of a single commissioner for older people was an important one, and I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth endorse it. I do, too, not least because it was precisely what I would have done had I returned to the Department of Health as Health Secretary had we secured a different result at the general election. However, I am worried that this vision, which we share, is made more difficult by the Health and Social Care Bill and the new landscape that is developing.
	Those are the issues that the Government need to address in the White Paper. We are grateful for the opportunity that the Minister and the Secretary of State have extended to us to take part in cross-party talks and to influence that debate, as well as on the crucial issue of how to fund the Dilnot proposals. Speaking for the Opposition, I can assure the House that we will play a constructive and responsible role in
	those talks. However, I would also like to take this opportunity to place three caveats on the table. First, we need to make it clear to people that although the Dilnot package is an important step forward, it is only that. It is not the whole answer to the challenges that the country faces. Its introduction would make the system fairer than it is today and would deal with the catastrophic costs of care that the most vulnerable people face. However, people would still be liable for large charges, with the vulnerable paying the most.
	Secondly, there has to be a recognition from all parties in the House that progress will come only with difficult decisions and nettles being grasped. We need to have a mature discussion with the public about those difficult options, rather than using them for point-scoring purposes. What stands in the way of progress is not the complexity of the issues—they are not over-complex—but the political will to advance a difficult argument. That is what has prevented us from making more progress than we should have. To push things along and give our talks some impetus, it would help if the Government committed to introduce legislation in this Parliament to implement whatever has been agreed. That would bring a useful focus to the cross-party talks. Thirdly, we believe that there is a genuine danger that the debate might focus only on funding the Dilnot recommendations, and not on the existing pressures in the system. That must be avoided at all costs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South said. As one care charity told me yesterday,
	“We can’t have jam tomorrow if we have no bread today”.
	I, too, was concerned by the comments that the Minister made before the Select Committee on Health, specifically when he said:
	“We don’t accept the position that there is a gap. We have closed that gap in the spending review. On the issue of unmet need, I am yet to find any agreement among academics on a definition of unmet need.”
	Many councils would struggle to reconcile that statement with the reality of what is happening on the ground. Council budgets are being cut by more than a third over the course of this Parliament, and as we know, adult social care makes up the largest part of those budgets, at around 40%.
	The Prime Minister is fond of quoting me on health funding at Prime Minister’s questions, but he only ever uses the bits that suit his purpose. If I may, I would like to give the House the full version of that quotation today, because what I was warning of was the danger of taking an unbalanced approach to public spending. Before the election, the Conservatives were saying that they would give the health service real-terms increases, over and above inflation—which have not, in fact, materialised—within a much reduced overall public spending envelope. My worry was that taking such an unbalanced approach could damage other public services, including those that are intrinsically linked to the health service. What I actually said was:
	“It is irresponsible to increase NHS spending in real terms within the overall financial envelope that he, as chancellor, is setting. The effect is that he is damaging, in a serious way, the ability of other public services to cope: he will visit real damage on other services that are intimately linked to the NHS,”
	such as social care. I believe that this is what we are seeing right now.

Paul Burstow: The right hon. Gentleman made those remarks ahead of the spending review in 2010. The spending review also gave the Government the opportunity to make announcements about social care spending, and it is when we committed £7.2 billion extra for social care support. We have to challenge local authorities to use those resources wisely. Indeed, I hope that he will join me in challenging local authorities to commit to spend the resources that the Government have allocated for social care on social care.

Andy Burnham: Yes, I will. There is no difference between us on that, but there is a difference between us on the funding position that the Minister has set out. The King’s Fund and others have identified that there is a £1 billion funding gap in adult social care in England, not just because of the money but because of the demographic pressures, which we cannot get away from.
	The Government’s commitment was to give more money to the health service, but we have produced figures showing a real-terms cut in outturn last year, and we also notice that transfers—indeed, recent transfers—have had to be made to the social care system, which implies that the Government have left it short, and that there is an emergency propping-up of the system, revealing the flaw in their position.

Kelvin Hopkins: To reinforce the point that my right hon. Friend makes, on a recent visit to my local hospital I was told by staff that they have more than 20 elderly patients who are perfectly well enough to live in a care home, but the care homes will not accept them and the funding cannot be found for them. Care is free in hospital, but it costs outside, so those people are forced to stay in hospital, and that places extra costs on the NHS.

Andy Burnham: The two systems do not work in such situations. The health service is intrinsically tied up with the social care system, and if it collapses the health service cannot discharge people from hospital. It is a false economy.
	As for what is happening on the ground, the Minister commented on funding nationally, but in reality eight out of 10 councils now provide care only for those with substantial or critical needs: they are restricting their eligibility criteria. Age UK estimates that that leaves 800,000 people without any formal support, representing plenty of unmet need, and the situation also leads councils to increase charges for home care. The average cost for a disabled or older person paying for 10 hours a week of home care is now £7,015 a year. Never mind a death tax, that is a stealth tax—or a dementia tax, as people pay more and more for the costs of care while they are alive. It is not fair, it is not right, and we should do something about it.
	That is why we say to the Government that we must address the question of the local government baseline alongside that of Dilnot. There cannot be a choice; we have to do both. If we do not and we fund only Dilnot, a larger number of people will pay increased charges but with a cap on what the charges might be, and that will not feel like the leap forward or the social progress that the Care and Support Alliance and others are looking for. It will not help us to drive up quality in the care system, either, but we desperately need to do so.
	Councils are being forced to stretch inadequate budgets ever more thinly, and that is leading to corners being cut. I shall illustrate that directly with an example from my constituency. Several years ago, Wigan council contracted out home care services in our borough, and staff were transferred to a number of private providers, which have changed hands over the years. Just after Christmas, home care workers in Leigh came to my surgery and told me how things had broken down over the Christmas period, leaving vulnerable people, frankly, unsupported. They showed me the timesheets that they had been given by the company they were working for, and one of them included four simultaneous bookings for 12 o’clock—a point that I think my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South made—on different sides of town, with no travel time built in. Impossible. If we look at the whole day, we find appointments within 10 or 15 minutes of each other, which are meant to include travel time as well as time for looking after older people. That is fundamentally unacceptable.
	I was told about staff working extra hours because of that situation, and then not being paid. They said that equipment such as aprons and gloves was not being provided, and that staff were funding them out of their own pockets, which again is absolutely wrong. They also raised concerns about rotas being issued only the night before, and care assistants not having keys to get in to meet the service-users they were visiting. Across the board, there were terrible problems and vulnerable people were being left without support.
	Members might think that that the company in question is a small, local one, but in fact it is Alpha Homecare Ltd, which is wholly owned by Carewatch Care Services Ltd, a national company with 154 offices nationwide. That is an example from Leigh, but I bet that other Members could cite similar ones.

Lisa Nandy: I too have been visited by employees of Alpha Homecare in my neighbouring constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the real concerns is that because those women are so dedicated to their work and often pick up work out of hours, without being paid to do so as they told me, it masks the fact that the situation is probably much worse than it appears on paper?

Andy Burnham: That is absolutely the point. This is not responsible capitalism; it is the worst kind of capitalism—making money by leaving vulnerable people unsupported and, as my hon. Friend says, taking advantage of the commitment and vocation of those on the front line, who will not walk away from the people they care for. It is unacceptable to not pay them and let them buy their own equipment, and to make profits off the back of that kind of behaviour.

Sarah Newton: I hesitate to intervene because it is important that the many Back Benchers who are here today are able to share their views. However, although none of us could support the appalling situation that the right hon. Gentleman described, he will be aware that the commissioner—the local authority—has a responsibility for the quality of the service. If he is concerned about it—I would be absolutely furious if I were the local Member of Parliament—he can take it up with the council so that the contract can be cancelled, and ultimately refer it to the Care Quality Commission.

Andy Burnham: I am aware of the system for raising complaints. I have done that, and I will now be inviting the CQC to take a look at the situation. I mentioned it because it illustrates vividly the thrust of my remarks. It is not an isolated example; the quality is not there in the system.
	The problem is that we are in danger of getting what we pay for, or what we do not pay for. As the pressure increases, councils are forced to make budgets go ever further, and they contract companies that do not provide the standard we are looking for. We would not accept it for our own families, and we should not accept it for any families—that is particularly so for us, with our responsibility to speak up for the most vulnerable in our society. Let us resolve in this Parliament to do something about it and to make overdue reform of the care system in England a reality.

Heather Wheeler: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) and the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on bringing this debate to the House.
	In South Derbyshire, social care is a very big issue, and I praise Derbyshire county council for grasping it with both hands. For the first time, an older people’s village is being built in my constituency, in Swadlincote. It will take anybody over the age of 55 when they do not need any care, until they need intermediate care, and then right until the end when they need dementia care. It is an absolutely brilliant new way of coping with care for the elderly, and I congratulate the council. Interestingly, there is now a strong debate about the typical old people’s homes that councils have run over the years, and people are concerned that the new style of looking after people will have to bed in a bit.
	What is important about the older people’s village is not only that people will choose to buy or rent flats in it, or be put there by the state if they cannot afford it, but that respite beds will be available so that carers can have a break. People can have step-down or step-up beds, get themselves well again, and be able to look after themselves with total 24-hour care.

George Hollingbery: I want to develop my hon. Friend’s point a little more generally. As many colleagues will know, I am something of a bore on planning, but I think that the planning system has an important role to play in this in future. Does she agree that neighbourhood plans—the new local plans that are coming forward—are an essential part of catering for the needs of the elderly on an ongoing, 20 to 25-year basis?

Heather Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for widening out the possibilities of my speech. I agree with him. As leaders in our areas, we need to direct people, as part of the consultations with their local development frameworks, to say, “This area could be zoned for bungalows”, or “That area could be zoned for an older people’s village”, or “That area, particularly if it has a section 106 agreement, could have some money allocated not only for the police, for education, or for a children’s play area, but for areas for older people.” We have recently had a planning application approved for a village for 2,500 people on a brownfield site, which
	included a zoned area for older people. The person who had the brilliant idea of building the village was inspired to do so by what he had seen his older relatives go through in their later years. He wanted to take a completely —dare I say it—holistic approach so that such people could in future grow old gracefully.
	As well as championing what Derbyshire county council is doing on my patch, in connection with Trident Housing Association and South Derbyshire district council, I am also chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on local government. We will be conducting a new inquiry into social care, which will dovetail with the findings of the Dilnot report. We hope that, as an all-party group, we will be able to examine the issue a bit more widely and think outside the box, in order to be helpful to Ministers and give them as many ideas as possible. I know that a number of Members who are in the Chamber today will be sitting on that inquiry with me, and I am grateful for the all-party support.
	When the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) came to speak to the all-party group, the room was packed. There were 70 people there, which is pretty good going for 2.30 on a Monday afternoon. People came from all over the country to hear him. It was a very uplifting afternoon, and I am grateful to him for giving us so much of his time.
	This is an important issue for all of us, but it has been kicked around like a political football. The deficit is horrendous, and we all know that there really is not enough money in the world to deal with the problem, but the mood in the House leads me to hope that we will have some answers before the next general election in 2015. We need to put those answers on the table and get this done, for everyone.

Nick Smith: I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), and the Backbench Business Committee, on securing this debate. Adult social care is one of the most important social issues of our time.
	The announcement by Ministers that the social care White Paper is coming soon—or soonish—is well timed. Given that there are an estimated 400,000 older people resident in UK care homes, I wish to concentrate my remarks today on residential care. The Dilnot report of last summer was well received. It struck the right balance between what an elderly person, their family and the state should pay and contribute to long-term care. Equally important for many were the report’s key premises that the current system of social care was underfunded and that additional funding and better targeting were urgently required. As Dilnot said, this is a price worth paying.
	We all want to see a UK in which old people are respected and valued and can make the most of their final years. Alfred Morris, who became a Minister in the 1970s, said that
	“if years cannot be added to the lives of the chronically sick, at least life can be added to their years”.—[Official Report, 5 December 1969; Vol. 792, c. 1863.]
	People might want to move nearer to relatives or downsize as they grow older, so a national system makes sense. Dilnot was right to recommend the delivery of that
	objective. It would be unfair to call it a weakness of Dilnot, in that it was arguably beyond his remit, but he concentrates on the demand side of social care and how it is to be paid for. He does not consider the supply side and how it is commissioned and, importantly, how it is delivered.
	We have recently seen too many examples of care for the elderly in residential care homes and hospitals that have been shameful. As many have said, we have to ensure that care is compassionate and respects the dignity of elderly residents. The care home business—and it is a business for many providers—has been a target for the quick-buck strategies of venture capitalists. Following the collapse of Southern Cross, another massive care provider, Four Seasons, has expanded. It now operates two homes in my constituency, but residents and staff are still worried about the outstanding debt liability of its parent company, Four Seasons Health Care. The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services has said:
	“Care wouldn't have got the level of investment it has had without the use of private money…But in these very complex business structures, good governance is key.”
	So, measures to ensure the effective oversight of the social care market to ensure stability and continuity are important for residents and relatives.
	I would also like to emphasise the issue of NHS support for care homes. The British Geriatrics Society has published “Quest for Quality”, which identified
	“unmet need, unacceptable variation and often poor quality of care provided by the NHS to older people resident in care homes.”
	While some homes are well served by the NHS and “Quest for Quality” gives examples of good practice, it records:
	“No model of coordinated health care has been developed to meet the needs of care home residents.”
	Some residents in residential care have no access to key clinicians such as geriatricians or to community health services such as physiotherapy, podiatry and continence services for their long-term conditions. We have to ask how such expertise can be inaccessible to care home residents? This cannot be tolerated.
	The solutions that have been proposed are familiar, and I have heard them several times this afternoon. They include co-ordinated teams of health professionals working together, patient and relative involvement and a partnership approach between health and social care workers. We know what works, but have failed to deliver the best care nationwide. We know, too, that early interventions cost less and emergency treatment costs more. Experts say that £40 million could be saved by a reduction in emergency admissions on hip fractures alone. Some care homes report that out-of-hours GPs tend to say, “Send to hospital”. In 2012, we should be doing much better than that. The report recommends that statutory regulators should scrutinise the provision of NHS support to care homes and the achievement of quality standards.
	The Care Quality Commission currently has responsibility for regulating and monitoring care homes in England, with NHS health services providing support to such homes. The Care Quality Commission conducted its special review of the health needs of care home
	residents, which was published last week, although it was originally expected in 2010. When the CQC came to the Public Accounts Committee in January, I asked it when the report would see the light of day and why it was so far behind schedule. The chief executive told me:
	“I suspect because of the complexity of the data collection and, to be honest, the fact that we have been focusing on trying to get the basic inspection processes up and running and right.”
	Basic inspection processes are crucial but so, too, is the promotion of residents’ basic health care. This is not good enough.
	Finally, in January I was co-signatory to a letter calling for doctors to record whether an injury from a fall, a pressure sore or an infection was present when a patient was admitted to hospital or developed while they were there. This is a simple and cheap mechanism for identifying in hospital a sub-standard quality of care.
	Dilnot says that the care system is confusing, unfair and unsustainable, and that reform is urgently needed. I hope that the social care White Paper will build on good practice and deliver the reforms and the investment we need. Worry over the funding of residential care or over poor health care in the place they call home should be a thing of the past for our pensioners.

Chris Skidmore: I start, like others, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing this debate, bringing out the urgent need to tackle the issue of the future of social care, and ensuring that we face up to the responsibilities of looking after the elderly of today and tomorrow. We have heard humble messages from the Minister and the shadow Secretary of State about their willingness to work together. The spirit of cross-party agreement is encouraging.
	As the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) said, these issues go right back to Beveridge in 1942, when the average life expectancy was 69 and social care was not an issue to be considered within the realms of the state. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the “sixth giant”, and he is right that we need to revisit Beveridge for the 21st century and perhaps to look again at what Beveridge considered to be most important—the contributory principle. The contributory principle for social care will be all-important when we look at how to deliver social care reform.
	As we know, reform is desperately needed. The arguments over the funding of our social care system are well practised, but let us rehearse some of the statistics, which are becoming more familiar with every debate we hold. The number of those aged over 85 will double by 2030, and during the course of this Parliament alone, more than 1.4 million people will turn 65—one in 10 of whom will have a long-term care need that will cost more than £100,000. We should also make it clear that this problem is not unique to the UK. Germany and Japan have recently taken radical action to reform their systems. However, the UK has a specific problem that makes finding a solution to the ever-growing problem of social care particularly difficult: most people simply do not understand the system. They do not understand that social care and the associated costs of getting older are not free, as the Minister stated, and nor have they ever been.
	That point was made in the Dilnot report, and it cannot be stressed enough. I wish to highlight two of Dilnot’s recommendations. First, he states:
	“To encourage people to plan ahead for their later life we recommend that the Government invests in an awareness campaign.”
	Secondly:
	“The Government should develop a major new information and advice strategy to help when care needs arise.”
	The acknowledgement that more needs to be done to inform the public is welcome. In reality, until one is forced to interact with the system, there is a serious lack of information compounded by an assessment procedure that is often unrealistically complicated. For many elderly people, part of the shock that comes from being forced to sell their house to pay for care is the unexpected nature of that situation. In some respects, we are facing a problem of responsibility and of planning ahead. Although people are now accustomed to the idea of preparing for their old age with regard to pension provision, there remains an aversion to preparing for the eventuality of future frailty and ill health. Few of us wish to admit that we will grow old and frail and need help and support, before it is too late.
	The solution to the funding crisis brought on by an ageing population will inevitably require individuals to pay more, and from an earlier age. Whatever we do to change the current system, it is absolutely essential that a much clearer picture of the relationship between contribution and entitlement—precisely as Beveridge set out—is at the heart of that.
	Reform requires realism. Even if the Dilnot proposals are implemented in their entirety, they will not provide the full solution. Whatever cap on care costs is set, domiciliary care costs and annual living costs are not taken into account. A new system that is able to lever more private funding into the system will ensure that we can provide the best deal for the elderly, but it will require an understanding that we need to grow an insurance market to maturity that is then sustainable in the longer term. That will not happen overnight. This is a process that will take between 10 and 20 years.
	The current Government have taken the first important steps to reforming the system. As hundreds of billions of pounds are being talked about in respect of the current euro crisis, it is easy to forget that the Government’s decision to give an additional £2 billion a year to social care in the 2010 comprehensive spending review was the greatest ever increase in social care funding, and will lead to a vast increase in resources. We are investing more than ever before in carers and respite care, recognising the huge contribution that they make to our country, selfless in their service to their partners, parents, families and relatives.
	In addition, a greater focus on personalisation and individual budgets, combined with an increased use of resources such as tele-health, will put more control over care into the hands of individuals, ultimately allowing new providers to provide more tailored services, thereby driving down costs at the same time as improving quality. Placing the person at the heart of their care has the potential to transform social care services, which for too long have been led by inefficient monopolies.
	The Prime Minister’s recent call for greater integration of health and social care is equally welcome. I am a member of the Health Committee, and we called for
	that in our recent report. If we fail to address the social care problem, the NHS will end up picking up the tab. Every unplanned hospital bed admission for the elderly is a mark of the failure of social care to prevent that from happening in the first place. We know that if we can reduce demand for hospital beds by just 10%, that could free up £1 billion that could then be redirected into community-based care services. We must recognise that hospital is not always the best place for care to take place and redirect resources to reflect that.
	In preparing for the Committee’s social care report, we visited Torbay, and I was particularly struck by the experience of integrated care there. Torbay’s primary care trust and adult social services have been combined into Torbay Care Trust, following which five integrated health and social care teams were established. They seek to be proactive in managing patients and to work in partnership with GPs. In Torbay, a team was also introduced that was specifically charged with monitoring patients in hospital and discharging patients where there is pressure on beds—again, the team is working closely with clinical professionals. That has helped to cut out unnecessary lengthy hospital stays and delayed transfers of care. As a result, Torbay now has the lowest use of hospital bed days in the south-west region, as well as the best performance on the length of stay. The chief executive of the NHS, Sir David Nicholson, has said:
	“I have seen the future and the future is Torbay”.
	He did so because it is the elderly who will benefit most from integrated care. Complex long-term conditions complicated by age can be properly managed only with a collaborative approach.

John Pugh: Torbay has, for some time, been a model of good practice and the fact that this good practice has not spread much further than the confines of Torbay is something of an enigma. Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on that?

Chris Skidmore: Torbay was one of the sites for the pilots set up in alliance with Kaiser Permanente, which came over in 2003. Interestingly, it is instructive that one of the problems the NHS faces as an institution is that, although it creates fantastic pilots and the NHS innovation centre is working hard on rolling them out across a wider area, that process encounters significant delays. Good models of care should be spread out far more widely and far faster.
	What most elderly people want from their health care system is simplicity. They do not want to be moved around constantly from pillar to post, waiting for specialists to see them; they do not want to see a host of different medical professionals, each of whom is unfamiliar with their case; and they do not want to languish in hospital beds when they could be more comfortable at home. The most important change must be a cultural one. There may have been a tendency in the past for health care to be reactive, responding to medical crises as they arise, but the future must be very different. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, we do these things not because they are easy but because they are hard. We know that we face a challenge that will define the landscape of health and care for the decades to come—it is a challenge that all in this House cannot be willing to postpone.

Alan Meale: I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on their tenacity in securing this debate. Hon. Members from all parts of this House should give them credit for their hard work and effort.
	In this important debate, I wish briefly to raise the issue of people suffering from autism and Asperger’s syndrome. As hon. Members will be fully aware, those conditions are extremely serious. Both are lifelong disabilities and they affect sufferers in a number of different ways. I fully accept that some people who have either of those conditions are able to live semi-independent lives, with only partial support, but others—indeed most—need a range of specialist support throughout their lives. Although they do not represent everybody who needs adult social care, I am not talking about a small number of people. Approximately 1% of people in the UK have autism, and they and their families account for at least 2 million involved citizens in the UK, which represents, on average, approximately 3,000 people in every constituency in Britain.
	Yet, even given those numbers, the National Autistic Society says that sufferers routinely struggle to access the services they need and that when they do access them the outcomes are largely poor. NAS research also shows: two thirds of all adults with autism say that they do not have enough support to meet their needs; more than 60% of these adults rely absolutely on their families for financial support, with approximately 40% of them having to live at home with their parents; and only 15% of people with autism are able to find full-time work.
	Failures to provide such support are also very expensive to the ordinary taxpayer. According to the National Audit Office, if local services supported only 4% of adults with high-functioning autism, that would be cost-neutral, and if they supported only 8%, that would save the Government at least £67 million a year. As a number of hon. Members have said, the Dilnot commission on funding of care and support stated a number of good things, in particular that the present system was both unfair and underfunded. It called on the Government to increase spending on social care and to limit the cost and charges for those who need it.
	The report’s key recommendations included the need for national eligibility criteria, with all those who enter adulthood with health and social need being eligible for free state support immediately rather than being expected to pay themselves. This is where I have a slight difference with the Minister, who said that it is not only about money. For many people who come to my surgery at their wits’ end, it is about money. Indeed, even those who had money do not have very much left in their late adulthood to spend either on themselves or on their loved ones, so money is very important.
	In conclusion, I believe that the adoption of the Dilnot recommendations would lead to an entirely fresh approach that would deliver greater awareness of autism, and in particular of the sufferers’ needs, care and, of course, support. It would also put in place measures to relieve the short-term crisis in funding in social care.

Robert Buckland: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise important statistics about people with autism, but may I urge him, when he
	speaks passionately about it, not to refer to people as suffering from the condition but rather to acknowledge that they have the condition and have great potential and that what we should all be doing through the care system is ensuring that they realise that potential? Does he accept that?

Alan Meale: I fully understand the direction that the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but let me just say that I am the son of a permanently and seriously disabled person and he was that way all of my life. I also served as a board member of the Portland training college for the disabled in Nottinghamshire and have been deeply engaged in matters connected with the seriously disabled for years. Believe me, when I use the terms “suffering” and “sufferers”, I mean them not in a derogatory sense but to highlight the plight of the people who I am talking about.
	In conclusion, I believe that adopting Dilnot would put in place measures to relieve the short-term crisis in social care funding and, most importantly, establish sustainability for care and support in the longer term.

John Pugh: I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on starting this debate. I shall be relatively brief because I sense that this is just the beginning of a debate that we will have throughout this Parliament and probably beyond. The whole issue represents a huge financial challenge to Government and a demographic challenge to the country and it will not go away. I suspect that many of the bad stories we have heard about poor care will, if anything, multiply over the years to come as finances are stretched further.
	There are obvious things that the Government can do and that they mean to do, such as developing the public health agenda as well as ensuring that healthy old age is a possibility and that more healthy ageing takes place. I think that the Government are serious in their intent. Obviously, as has been suggested by many hon. Members, they can also join up health and social care a little better than they are at the moment. We want care to be integrated more and costs—and people—to be shunted around rather less. I cannot always follow how the Health and Social Care Bill advances that aim, because, after all, we will have a new set of commissioners with limited experience in interacting with local authorities and we will necessarily lose some established commissioners and some established arrangements will collapse. That will create a difficulty, albeit a temporary one; we will have it for a little while yet.
	As I tried to point out in my intervention on the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), there is no obvious mechanism for spreading good practice. How many times have we said that Torbay is an exemplar but then pointed to very few places that have followed that example? There is a real issue with how we spread good practice. I accept that the Bill gives the commissioners the right mandate to integrate social care and health care, but I question whether they will have the right capacity. I listened to the Minister, who put faith in the health and wellbeing boards being able to join things together or to force people to act together who might otherwise not do so, but the big issue staring us all in the face is the cost of care, followed by the quality of care.
	In some respects, quality of care is the easier fix. We could have effective regulation and the Care Quality Commission could do a lot better and be less overloaded, but I suspect that it will not be short of work given some of the things it is asked to do by the Bill. Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Minister, who has done a great deal in his time in Parliament to emphasise the need to treat people in care properly. In particular, he has campaigned for people to be respected in old age and for the elders—I think that is the word he used; it is a very nice word—to be defended. In terms of improving the quality of care, he is alive to the need to ensure there is portability so that, when someone goes from one place to another, the care does not decline but remains at a constant and expected standard. There is also a need, which we all recognise—again, the Minister has this well within his remit—to provide a proper legal framework in which people can understand their entitlements and secure them.
	Then we come to funding, which is the big issue. I am relatively familiar with this issue because I have experience of being in a local authority with a large demographic bulge towards the top end that has had some difficulty with past Governments over this. Local authorities usually argue that they can provide only what they can—that provision is subject to whatever resources they have—and they try to ration what they deliver according to what they have in the kitty. They cannot always do what people feel they should, so they prefer to do what they can, but Governments are often quite explicit in telling them that regardless of what they have they need to deliver on the entitlements that people expect. I am very familiar with this because when I was the leader of a local authority, when Lord Boateng was in Richmond house, I was once summoned to be roundly told off because my local authority had just lost a celebrated case against Help the Aged. In that case, this problem was precisely the issue: we knew what we could justifiably afford but it was far less than what we needed to deliver what people expected. The previous Labour Government laid down in no uncertain terms that regardless of what we had got, we had to provide the service that was expected.
	That tension between local authorities and central Government has always been there and is not going to go away. I accept the point that the Minister made—if we have an outcomes framework and greater transparency, it will be more obvious to people than it is now exactly what is going on and what quality of service is being delivered by individual local authorities—but at the heart of this issue is the local authority settlement. One can say many things about the local authority settlement, but one thing it is not is transparent. It is something that people argue over time and again. My borough has always found its resources severely stretched because we have a high percentage of elderly people and we have never felt that any Government have given us a fair deal in that respect. So the debate goes on, and in some ways it is going to become more critical because at some of the local authorities that have had to make quite severe cuts, including mine, the costs of adult care are going to swamp their budget completely. They are going to have to give up delivering other services in order to fund adult care. That is despite Government top-ups, which are welcome.
	There is also the phenomenon of some sheltered housing providers, which have been affected by the
	refocusing of Supporting People budgets, giving up providing services that people expect as part and parcel of sheltered housing. There are also the local authorities being driven to be more efficient and switching providers but in the process completely hacking off the people who want continuous provision and do not see the case for doing that.
	We need a solution to what is a huge financial problem. The solution needs to be affordable, sustainable, fair and, obviously, cross-party. I think we all regret what happened at the last general election, when the cross-party consensus broke down for political reasons. That is where Dilnot comes in. The Dilnot solution seems to be viable: it allows for individual responsibility but also caps costs. That deals with the two big problems I have always come across with this issue. From time to time, I get constituents saying to me how unfairly they are being treated when other people, who have blown all their money before retirement on cruises or whatever, seem to get provision—the free-rider problem. Dilnot recognised that and endeavoured to deal with it. The report also deals with the other, probably larger, problem that people fear that the cost of care will run away with their entire income and they will end up destitute. I personally know people who genuinely hope to die before the money runs out, and that is an unfortunate end to one’s time on this earth.
	If Dilnot or something like it is to work, insurance companies will have to develop the right products, as other hon. Members have emphasised. If one has discussions with insurance companies, one will find that they are of varied minds and that some of the products that Dilnot expects that they will offer are not the ones that they would ideally wish to provide or that they think they should provide. So there will be quite a debate there.
	Another problem with Dilnot, which I think we can all see, is that in so far as it caps the overall costs, it presumably represents some sort of bail-out for the fabulously wealthy. People might see fairness in that, but they do not see that it should necessarily be the Government’s first priority in the current circumstances.
	Then, lingering behind everything, the Treasury is simply worrying what it is all going to cost at the end of the day and wants some financial certainty, for quite good reasons. It is difficult for anyone to provide that. So all this is going to provide a rich menu for a future debate, and we are grateful to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth for initiating it.

Tony Baldry: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate, not least as co-chair with Baroness Pitkeathley of the all-party group on carers. The first point I want to make is about the phrase “adult social care”. One of the difficulties in this area is that if we are not careful we develop a secret garden of policy and we all start to descend into shorthand—referring to Dilnot as though everyone understands the five paragraphs that follow from that. I thought that the shadow Secretary of State for Health made a good point when he said that, for many people, this is all about being afraid of getting old. I think that this should be about not adult social care but care of the elderly.
	When the Law Commission was asked to define social care, the best that it could come up with was the phrase
	“promote or contribute to the well-being of the individual.”
	That was pretty otiose. We should focus on care for the elderly because we will need to enlist in our constituencies many more people to get involved in this, not least local councillors, with the introduction of health and wellbeing boards. I do not know about other hon. Members but, although I think that the provisions in the Health and Social Care Bill on integration are really good news—I will come on to that in a second—I do not sense that county councillors and others have yet woken up to the fact that shortly they will be part of the boards and will be involved in delivering integrated care. Part of the reason for that is that this has been a bit of a secret garden of policy. One of the things that Ministers will have to do in the near future is go out and talk to, in two-tier authorities such as mine, county councillors, but in others those councillors who are responsible for running social services, to get across the fact that the whole way in which services are delivered will fundamentally change.
	About half the speeches this afternoon have been what I would describe as old-fashioned speeches to Ministers, saying, “Please can we have some more money?” The truth of the matter, as we all know, is that there is no more money. It is actually more challenging than that. We have the Nicholson challenge of 4% efficiency savings in the NHS over four years. We will make this work only if we completely rethink the way in which we deliver services. We all know of far too many people who are in hospital but could be moved elsewhere if intermediate beds were available. That would mean they could be moved out of acute beds, such as those at the John Radcliffe hospital or the Horton general hospital in Banbury, but that would require someone working out how to provide more community facilities and intermediate beds and how they would be paid for, and that will require a lot of rethinking by county councillors and GP commissioning bodies working together.
	We have to start to put this in a language that everyone understands. When the White Paper is published in the “spring”—that leaves only April—there is a danger that we will all get fixated on Dilnot and the cap. It seems to me that that is just one part of the whole equation for improving care for the elderly and, increasingly, elderly people suffering from dementia. The figures on dementia are really pretty scary. Among the many organisations that produced briefings for today’s debate is the Alzheimer’s Society, which reports—I had forgotten this—that there are now nearly 750,000 people in the UK with dementia, and that figure is set to rise to over 1 million by 2021, when many of us expect still to be in the House.
	Dementia costs the UK economy £20 billion a year. When I was first elected to the House, most Christmases I would visit the homes for the elderly in my constituency. The residents then were mostly spry widows in their 70s, but now all the homes are almost totally full of people suffering from dementia or age-related dementia. This is about how we care for the elderly and, increasingly, elderly people with dementia, many of whom are having to stay at home longer. Indeed, the Alzheimer’s Society says that more than half of the people suffering from
	dementia have not yet been diagnosed as such because their families or those are caring for them are probably disguising the fact.

Barbara Keeley: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman thought that my speech was one of the old-fashioned ones asking for more resources, but he probably did. However, I gave three examples of cuts to services for people with long-term conditions: the support services for people with dementia that Age Concern was running; a community matron service; and active case management for people with long-term conditions. It is inexcusable for those to be cut. If the Nicholson efficiency reforms are causing those services to be cut there is no way forward, because those are the supports in the community that will keep people out of hospital. It seems crazy. I now have three examples, whereas at Christmas I had only one. I am distressed to think that those services are being cut, because they are the way to support those people in the community.

Tony Baldry: One of the advantages of having been in the House for a little while is that one spends some time on the Government side, some time on the Opposition side and some time on the Government side again—I hope not to be on the other side again but am quite content wherever. One of the things I have learnt is that which side one sits on does not change reality. The reality is that this challenge is so enormous that it will not be solved simply by all of us telling the Treasury, “You’ve given us £2 billion. Please can we have another £4 billion, or another £8 billion.” It will only be changed if we fundamentally rethink how we deliver services for the elderly. If all Members asked how many delayed discharges there were in the general hospitals in each of our constituencies, I suspect that we would find that it is a huge number—I am afraid that Oxfordshire is currently one of the worse offenders. We have to do better. We have to fundamentally rethink the whole way we deliver these services.

Andy Burnham: I agree with the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who talked about the contributory principle, because there has to be a partnership between the individual and the state. If the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) is ruling out general taxation, which I agree with him on because it would not be fair to make the younger population pay yet another cost, does he not accept that one ultimately comes to some difficult options in raising the extra money to build a fairer care system? We all have to start being honest about that and put some difficult options on the table, so that the public can have a debate about them.

Tony Baldry: Of course, general taxation will continue to play a part because it will fund the national health service, including the services delivered in acute general hospitals and so forth. However, far too many elderly ladies who go into a general hospital with a stroke or a broken hip stay there for longer than they need to for their treatment and could go home. We all need to engage in a debate in our constituencies that breaks out of the secret garden and involves far more people, including elected representatives, voluntary organisations and others.
	Finally, I want to talk about carers, because I do not believe that any debate on care for the elderly should take place without a discussion about carers. As the
	co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers, the House would be surprised if I did not mention them. There are two things that carers want. The first is recognition, which is now becoming slightly better. We need GPs and others to help people to understand that they are carers and to ensure, wherever possible, that they apply for a carers assessment, so that we can give support to carers. That will be particularly important if we are asking people to spend more time living at home when they are suffering from dementia and other conditions.
	There are simple things that can be done. One of the worries of people who care for someone with dementia is that they will wander off and get lost. Age UK in Oxfordshire is starting a new initiative that encourages people to text a number if they see Mr Smith wandering down the street. Most of us are a bit embarrassed or shy if we see a neighbour wandering off and do not think that we should apprehend him, even if we think that he might not know where he is going or that it is not in his best interests to wander off. The question is how to deal with that as a community. There are lots of complexities in these matters. The whole community has to get involved if we are going to have more people living at home.
	The second thing that carers want—I have said this on occasions too numerous to particularise—is breaks. We must ensure that there is a decent system of respite care. If there is not, carers sooner or later break, and when they break, they break for ever. That means that people whom it had been possible to care for at home go into a nursing or care home, never to emerge. With judicious and supportive carers’ breaks and respite care, many carers can be supported to carry on caring for a long time. Carers need to be valued and deserve to be valued. At every opportunity, the House should say an enormous thank you to the hundreds of thousands of carers in this country.

Kelvin Hopkins: I apologise for being away from the debate for a short time, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was speaking in Westminster Hall on another subject. Being in two places at once, even for a Member of Parliament, is rather difficult.
	I have long had an interest in this subject. I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing this important debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on her excellent speech. I also give full credit to the two Front-Bench spokesmen because I believe that they genuinely care about this matter and are not just speaking warm words. I appreciate that.
	I will focus on residential care, but I believe that domiciliary care is also in a poor state. I know of many cases in my constituency of people not being looked after well under the new privatised, personalised approach to care. The contrast between that type of care and what people get from an NHS district nurse who goes around to tend to people is extreme. I have spent a day with one of my local district nurses—they are not called that any more, but Members know who I am talking about—and seen how a true professional, a public employee motivated by the public service ethos, treats their patients at home. That is how all sorts of care ought to be provided, rather than by private companies or private individuals who often have heavy work loads, are impatient and do not provide the care and sympathy that they should when they visit people in their homes.
	The royal commission on long-term care for the elderly, which recommended that care ought to be free at the point of need on the same basis as the national health service, was absolutely right. The Government of the time rejected its recommendation, and went so far as to ensure that a couple of members of the commission voted against it so that it was a majority view, not a unanimous one. I personally think that was a terrible thing to do. I have raised it before in the Chamber and probably will again, because I think it was so wrong. Nevertheless, the royal commission recommended free long-term care for all, and I absolutely agreed.
	I tabled an early-day motion in the 1997 to 2001 Parliament calling for the Government to adopt the royal commission’s recommendations. More than 120 Members signed it, most of them Labour Members, but other parties were represented as well. No notice was taken of it. The current Minister was one of the signatories. I tabled another early-day motion in the 2001-05 Parliament saying the same thing, and it got similar support. I hope I am not embarrassing him, but he tabled a similar motion when he was in opposition, which I supported. We were on the same side at that time, and I like to think that he is doing his best to push that agenda forward within the constraints of the coalition.
	My position is absolutely clear: I believe that there should be free long-term care for all, provided by a professional care service of directly employed public service workers. That is how people would be served best, and it would be properly publicly accountable.

Paul Burstow: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that I signed early-day motions supportive of the royal commission, but I need to correct the record ever so slightly. He is giving the impression that the royal commission recommended that all aspects of long-term care should be free. I am sure he will want to acknowledge that accommodation and hotel costs were not intended to be covered by its proposal.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank the Minister for his correction, and I think the situation is possibly similar in the health service.
	I come to the problem of affordability. I remember that in the early days after 1997, the Government were trying to keep down public spending, and there was a crisis in the NHS because of under-spending. That crisis was inherited from the previous Government, but for the first two or three years after 1997 nothing happened. We got well behind in what we needed to do to fund the NHS.
	During that Parliament, the standard rate of income tax was reduced by 1p, and nobody even noticed. I believe that at that time, 1p on income tax was the equivalent of about £3 billion, and that income was just lost. It could have been spent on long-term care or the health service, but the decision was taken to reduce tax. Later on, in the last Parliament, the then Chancellor decided to reduce the standard rate of tax by 2p. I am not suggesting that the standard rate of income tax is necessarily the way to pay for care, but it is not right to say that things are unaffordable when big tax cuts are being made. I believe that 1p on the rate would now raise about £4 billion or 2p about £8 billion—plenty to pay for free long-term care for all who need it.

Laura Sandys: Of course money is important, but is this really just about money? Is it not really about how we believe the service needs to be delivered? We need to ensure that people are kept out of care, not in care. Until we re-engineer what we are delivering, we will not be able to consider the funding mechanisms. If we just fund what we currently have, we will be funding something that is broken.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I think that the system is broken because it is underfunded and we have forged ahead with privatisation. In my constituency, we had a wonderful care home, which I knew well because my mother-in-law lived there in the last few years of her life. She and the other residents loved being there. They had permanent, dedicated staff, all from the local community, who loved working there. All the health advisers and professionals who came into the home thought that it was wonderful. It was closed. The pretext for that was that it did not meet care home standards because it did not have en-suite facilities. It was a trick—a pretext for closing homes and forcing them into the private sector. That home was closed, the land was sold and all the residents went into private care, some of which was not very good.

Glyn Davies: I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene because it gives me an opportunity to contribute to the debate, a lot of which I missed because of the debate on the common agricultural policy in Westminster Hall that I had to attend.
	The hon. Gentleman’s speech is about residential care homes. With the best will in the world, no matter how successful we are in developing domiciliary care, private sector residential care homes will play a big part in care for the elderly. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, after the stories about the lack of regulation, including financial regulation, in private care homes in the past couple of years, we in Parliament will have to ensure that all residential care homes meet a certain standard for long-term sustainability so that people are not moved around without any real control?

Kelvin Hopkins: I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely. The Care Quality Commission was encouraged to have light-touch regulation and to do only occasional inspections, of which the homes were usually warned. The inspections were not adequate, and many homes fell below the standards anybody would expect. If every care home was rigorously inspected, with spot checks from time to time, we might ensure that they lived up to the standards that we expect. However, it could cost a bit more because they might have to employ more qualified staff and so on.
	We should professionalise the system and ensure that it is properly regulated and checked, even if it stays in the private sector. I personally prefer public provision, with people who are motivated by what I call the public service ethos. I have seen that working and I have seen what has replaced it. People come to my surgery and complain about being forced to move out of care homes that are being closed. That is especially difficult for those with dementia. People are pressed to go into other homes, which the residents’ families often find inferior. Some are good, but not all, and people are unhappy that three care homes in my constituency have closed.
	The first home closed 10 to 12 years ago and I remonstrated with the local authority officer concerned. After an hour, he finally said that it was about costs: that private care homes pay lower wages, and that the staff work longer hours and have shorter holidays. I said that at least that was honest, but it was not right.
	I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) about young people paying. Most taxation involves redistribution to ourselves at other stages of our lives. When we pay national insurance contributions for pensions, we are in a sense saving for ourselves later through a state system. With the health service, we pay in when we can and take out when we need. It is a redistribution to ourselves. The young paying in now for long-term care is a sensible approach, especially as it will be proportionate.

Andy Burnham: The young would not be paying for their own care; we would be asking them to pay for the care of people who are already at an age when they might need the care system. In a world where those old people have built up valuable housing assets but young people cannot get on the housing ladder, is it right for us to say, “Here’s another tax for you to pay—for care for older people”?

Kelvin Hopkins: We must start getting the system right somewhere. We can adjust taxation provision in other ways in the short term, but in the long term we must have a properly progressive taxation system to pay for adult social care. I have just been to Denmark. Many Government Members and others say that high-tax countries are weak economies, but the tax take in Denmark as a proportion of gross domestic product is 18% higher than in Britain. The Danish have free tuition at universities, and students are paid €5,000 a year to go there up to the age of 25. I am not saying that we should do that, but I am making the point that taxation at that level, provided it is fair and progressive, does not ruin economies.
	It is matter of choice. I have told the story of my young children many times in the Chamber. When my son asked for a second ice cream, my wife would say, “Mummy can’t afford it.” She was saying not that we could not afford it—we could—but, “You’re not having another ice-cream.” When people talk about affordability, they are saying, “We choose not to pay.” Those who constantly campaign for a low-tax society are doing down people who are in need. We must accept that if we want to be looked after when we are in need, we must pay taxes.
	When people on the doorstep ask me what my problem is, I say, “I don’t pay enough tax.” I am sure other hon. Members do not say that. My income is now more than sufficient for me to live a very comfortable life, but the income of many young people is not sufficient for them. There is nothing wrong with shifting the burden of taxation to those who are on higher incomes or those for whom most expenses are over. It is unfashionable to say such things, but I happen to believe they are right.
	I mentioned the care homes in my constituency, but another issue is that of payment. Our tax gap was not so long ago estimated at £120 billion a year. If we collected just 5% of that, we could pay for free long-term care without a problem. To be fair to the Government, they are starting to wake up to the need to close that tax gap—not enough, but a bit. We have left it alone for too long, because they do not want to upset rich people who are investing in the Cayman Islands or wherever.
	The Government are starting to put a little pressure on and are employing a few more tax collectors. I know from my local VAT office that every inspector collects many times their own salary, so why not employ many more to get the VAT in? People recently went to prison for a tax fraud whereby they used VAT for import and export. Such people make billions out of hon. Members and our constituents. Let us round up a few of them and stop that loophole, and ensure that people who are well off and who should pay taxes do so.
	I have known Andrew Dilnot for many years—he is a civilised, highly intelligent and wholly admirable man. He did a good job in his report of trying to find the fulcrum point—the Treasury might just wear what he is proposing, but if he went further it would probably say no. There is a parallel with Adair Turner, another intelligent, civilised man. He tried to change the tax system a bit. He knew that if he pushed the Treasury too far, it would react and he would not get what he wanted. Indeed, he had a hard job persuading the previous Chancellor to accept his proposals.
	The authors of those reports try to come up with recommendations that will be acceptable to the Government and the Treasury instead of coming up with what they believe to be a strong position. The problem is not the electorate, but the Government and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. Ministers and officials will not accept the approach I suggest for a more civilised society.
	Like all hon. Members, I do a lot of public speaking. I say, “What would you choose? Would you take the risk that your family member’s house will be compulsorily sold, and all the money used to look after granny, or will you pay a tiny bit more tax over a lifetime to make sure that granny is properly looked after without being forced to sell the house?” For wealthy people, that does not matter, but it does matter for many working class people, including first-time owner-occupiers. In many cases, they have bought council houses, which I do not believe is a good idea. They have a bit of equity in their family for the first time ever and it can be used to help their children—or grandchildren usually—to stay in the owner-occupied sector, but it is being eaten away by their being forced to pay for care for elderly relatives. Indeed, owner-occupation is now falling as a proportion of housing tenure. Whatever one thinks about owner-occupation or renting, that is happening, and a factor in that might be that people are being forced to sell houses to pay for care, and the equity is in effect being lost in rich taxpayers’ pockets, because they are the ones who can get away with not paying enough to ensure that granny is looked after.
	We have to accept that people are living longer. We have not found a solution yet to Alzheimer’s or dementia. I hope that we do—it will solve many problems—but while we have not, we have to ensure that elderly people are cared for, which means that we have to pay for it properly. We will all get old one day, and we all might need this care one day. Certainly, for me and my family, I want to ensure that, as and when any of us need that care, it will be there for us and provided properly in a civilised and caring way.

Fiona Bruce: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on the sensitive and caring way in which she
	brought this debate to the House. I also pay tribute to the 6 million unpaid carers in the UK. Unsung and often unseen, they are heroes and heroines who daily and sacrificially dedicate their lives to caring for others, often for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. They deserve our utmost respect and appreciation, and I wish to record mine here.
	I therefore wish to focus on the need to support carers in this era of an increasingly elderly population and greater longevity and with the exponential Treasury challenges that it will undoubtedly bring. Two million people currently move in and out of a caring role each year, but an ageing population and people living longer with chronic conditions mean that this figure is likely to rise significantly, so we must give serious consideration to how such carers, caring charities and community organisations can be better supported.
	It is essential that we encourage a major cultural shift to consider how more support can be provided to carers, especially those who care for their families, and to charitable organisations that support carers. Caring charities, such as Crossroads Care Cheshire East, of which I am privileged to be patron, and the Prince’s Royal Trust for Carers, provide disproportionately greater value for money in the support they give than purely publicly funded social care services would ordinarily provide. As one former employee of the Prince’s Royal Trust for Carers told me, they supplement that work with volunteer support and the ability to act flexibly and go the extra mile, while all the time operating to high professional standards.
	A significant caring role can affect a carer’s emotional, physical and financial health, but by supporting carers more positively, we can not only help them and those they care for but save the public purse considerable expense, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) so eloquently said, will be increasingly important in the coming decades—to a degree that we have only just begun to glimpse. Crossroads Care Cheshire East writes:
	“A clear agenda to support carers is an essential component of adult social care strategic planning.”
	Caroline Hebblethwaite, who has been a volunteer worker with a caring charity in Cheshire, then an employee and now a full-time carer, speaks with unchallengeable authority and has told me of the many ways in which she believes we could support charities that in turn support carers more effectively. She says that longer-term funding commitments would help—beyond, say, two years—because shorter-term commitments make it difficult for organisations to plan and result in unhelpful churning, loss of experienced staff and disruption to well-established, cost-effective services. As Crossroads Care Cheshire East writes:
	“Constantly having to reinvent well developed and user led services simply to fit another funding criteria is not a good use of time and money. Innovation is essential but experience should not be ignored.”
	Both Caroline Hebblethwaite and Crossroads Care refer to the essential need for carer breaks. Crossroads says that carer breaks
	“should not be paid for out of any benefits received by the person with care needs but should be a carer’s service for the benefit and health and wellbeing of the carer. It is not appropriate to assume that service users will use their own personal budgets to allow their carer a break—we know that often this does not happen. Without practical support carers and families will break down—this can be avoided by low level investment at an earlier stage.”
	I will give examples of some of the many ways in which relatively low-level investment can be made.
	Local authority funding could make a huge difference if a little more was channelled through carers charities, to be paid out at the discretion of the charities’ trustees. Caroline Hebblethwaite tells me that when she worked for the Princess Royal Trust, small grants paid directly to carers—not means-tested—made a disproportionate difference. She tells me, for example, of an elderly man caring full time for his wife for whom that small grant paid for a shed, in which he could pursue his hobby. It gave him that little bit of extra space and helped him to keep going. For another carer, there was a one-off spring clean, while yet another received computer literacy training, and another the occasional massage.
	Provision to enable carers who work so that they can remain in work—by having someone call in, just two or three times a day, to check that their loved one is all right—can make such a difference. A sitting service is also helpful, so that carers can go out. One way that local authorities can offer support—at a very modest cost, but making a real difference for those who care—is by funding befriending groups. Such groups enable carers to share experiences, but they need to be local, because carers do not have the time to travel far. Those that have helped in Cheshire include befriending groups that have provided talks on such matters as how to redecorate on a budget or how to make a hanging basket, and have even given advice on healthy eating. That might seem mundane, but it can make a real difference to carers, who often feel run down or a little bit depressed. Such small amounts of support can have a disproportionate benefit, and we need more of this.
	Carers, often low on energy and self-esteem, find it hard to get information, advice and support, and I am advised that social workers often do not have much time to signpost them. However, local charities for carers can perform an important function in offering a great source of advice. Another function that they perform is by acting as a counselling service, providing counselling time—again, something that social workers cannot provide. There is a real need to recognise and support carers—for example, by giving them help in adapting to change, or to loss, or grief for a life once lived, or a life that might have been.
	Caroline Hebblethwaite also told me about how much carers days have meant to those whom she has supported. Carers days in Cheshire have been held at local hotels, or even at a golf club. Carers are invited to come for special “feel good” days, where they are affirmed and told how much they are valued, and where high-level speakers talk to them, acknowledging the vital role that carers play. More of this is what we need as we move forward.
	Local authorities could also ask professional advisers in carers charities to carry out more assessments of carers. This would not only be a valuable source of additional funding for carers’ charities, but also a likely cost-saver for local authorities. Incidentally, I am informed that assessments of carers’ needs are not made as frequently as they should be in many circumstances.
	I would like now to deal with one or two other points. First, my constituent Barry Smith has written to me about higher attendance allowance:
	“My parents-in-law are both 89, my father in law has advanced Alzheimer’s and my mother in law, in poor health herself, and lacking easy mobility after having broke both hips, is his primary care…We have spent the last few days trying to fill out the forms for…Higher Attendance Allowance and have come to the conclusion that the application itself constitutes a form of discrimination against the elderly. We had been warned…that the form is extremely difficult to fill in…and that the rate of success is only 60%,”
	but it seems that
	“for most elderly people it is simply impossible to complete…It is as though it has been carefully designed to ensure that the minimum number of applicants receive their entitlement”.
	Hopefully that is something the Minister will look at.
	I commend the proactive work of Cheshire East council, the local authority area in which my constituency lies, to support older people, as illustrated in its innovative “Ageing Well in Cheshire East” programme, 2012-17, which has just been launched. It focuses on how to support people from as early as 50 upwards—a little depressing for some of us at that age!—on the basis that the earlier we plan, the better those plans will be for later life, given that we all want to live well for as long as possible.
	The aim of the programme is to ensure that older people live well and have access to the right levels of different services and support, including crisis support, at appropriate times in their lives. The programme aims to ensure also that they have a strong voice in influencing local policy and services; remain healthy, active and independent; receive help to plan their finances long-term; live in a safe environment, with appropriate housing; access appropriately constructed public transport; benefit from and contribute through employment, volunteering and learning; keep their links with family and friends; are actively involved in their communities; and maintain their roles as partners, carers and grandparents.
	I commend in particular the wide-ranging network of relevant public, private and voluntary sector bodies which the Ageing Well programme has fostered, garnering a commitment to the programme that will be essential if we are to maximise our support and provide the effectively integrated care that has been talked about today. The programme has secured a commitment from agencies as wide-ranging as Cheshire fire and rescue, the police, clinical commissioning groups, local councils, the faith sector, housing providers, care charities and even the chambers of commerce.
	The programme is already tackling older people’s concerns, such as those about disjointed services, the variable quality of care and social and economic isolation, and it is also improving volunteering opportunities. Such forward-thinking work is an essential component of our successfully rising to the challenge of caring for the elderly in the years ahead, and it is particularly important in an area such as Cheshire East, which has a rapidly ageing population and, in fact, the largest elderly population of any area, per head of population, in the north-west of England. The number of over-65s in the area will grow by 50%, and the number of over-85s is set to double, by 2025.
	Cheshire East has funding challenges, however. The Government funding for the area is among the lowest of any in the country, despite the challenges that we are going to face and, indeed, already face in caring for such a large elderly population. We are given £191.62 per head, while Tower Hamlets, by way of comparison, is given £968.18, meaning that we can afford to spend per head £753.42, while Tower Hamlets has almost double, £1,428.16.
	The funding context of each local authority area is an important influence on the services that can be provided, and in an area such as Cheshire East, with low funding but an increasingly elderly population, that is going to be a challenge, so I ask the Minister to consider it as we move forward.
	I commend the Minister’s commitment to build on community capacity as the way forward, helping people to stay independent, healthy and well for as long as possible. Indeed, perhaps a better term for independent living would be inter-dependent living, recognising the importance of, and the need for, all of us to give and receive care at various stages of our lives. The more we can encourage caring within families, by friends and in communities, the healthier our society will be. We need to do all that we can to foster support and to encourage the sharing of caring, and we need to treat with gratitude and respect those who do care.
	The words of the chief executive of Carers UK are apt:
	“Our health and social care services could not function without the contribution of the unpaid care provided by families—which we estimate to be the equivalent of £119 billion a year.”
	The basic building blocks of a healthy society are found in relationships—the networks of reciprocal responsibility that are found in the family, in friendships, in church, in community life, in work, and in schools. Through these basic building blocks, individuals meet the needs of their community. It is as much, if not more, the role of Government to help society to meet its needs through those relationships rather than seeking to take control and trying to meet those needs itself. As human beings, one of the ways we grow is through the challenge of meeting the needs of others in our relationships within our communities. Our national mindset needs to be increasingly directed towards that goal. Looking to the selfless example of our country’s 6 million carers would be a very good place to start.

Laura Sandys: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce).
	My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) has been very important in instigating this debate about future policy on long-term care and ensuring that other such discussions are going on around the House. If it is the case that we come into Parliament because of certain issues, then reviewing and reforming long-term care would be one of the reasons that I find myself in this place. I am not sure that anything is more important for Government, Opposition and this House to resolve, and I give a huge amount of support to the cross-party debate that is going on.
	However, we must realise that, unlike in other parts of NHS reform, there is not one person in the country who does not have a view on this subject and does not understand what long-term care means to them. They will look at it, and present it, through the prism of their parents or elderly relatives, and in their heart they will be thinking, “That is what my future will look like.” The shadow Secretary of State said that this debate needs to go beyond this House and to engage the public. I welcome that comment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) said, this is about a contract. We are entering into a discussion that will end up as a settlement between the country—the hon. Member
	for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) thinks that a little more funding might be needed—and the public, whose responsibility meets that of the state halfway, or perhaps more.
	The public know that the system is broken. Its funding has been squeezed and there has been very little reform or innovation—other than in Torbay, which as we all know is the place to move to as one gets older. When people talk about care packages, it sometimes seems as though the patient is the package and it is hard to understand where the care kicks in. I believe that Dilnot has produced something useful and important, but perhaps it is a little pre-emptive. Until we can be explicit about what this care looks like and feels like, and what people’s experiences of it will be, it is difficult to talk to people about how we expect them to pay for it. I do not believe that the public are prepared to fund the current system, so we must first look at changing it.
	I have been a carer myself. I cared for my father when he had a stroke when I was 17, and I saw my mother age by 15 years over a five-year period of caring for him. I have seen it first hand, and I understand some of the key issues that people face. I have also worked professionally in the areas of incontinence—not a charming subject, but one that is exceptionally important in this respect— epilepsy and motor neurone disease, so I have seen this from the end user’s perspective.
	What could the new system look like? I believe that the system should be re-engineered around the principle of early intervention. The deceleration of the impact of ageing could be achieved by co-ordinating non-clinical services to keep people fitter and out of the care system. The things that social care delivers must change; it needs a total refit. I believe that that could be guided by four key principles. The first is about keeping the new old young. The second is about keeping people out of care, rather than talking about funding them in care. The third is about caring for carers; we need a whole stream of wraparound policy to support those people who are making that ultimate sacrifice—well, not the ultimate sacrifice, but a significant one. The fourth is about the need for top-quality care for those who do end up in residential care.
	I hope that we will be able to keep the new old young. Members will be thrilled to hear that most of us have already started the process of ageing. Everything that we do now will have an impact on us in our 60s and 70s, and beyond. Why are we not introducing, through our GPs, human MOTs to look at any challenges to mobility? Owing to distributing far too many leaflets, both my arches have collapsed and I now have insoles in my shoes. That could have become a major problem as I got older. Why are we not looking at people in their 40s and 50s and taking steps to intervene and decelerate the ageing process?

John Pugh: Does the hon. Lady not recognise that delivering leaflets is one of the finest ways of keeping the old young?

Laura Sandys: I totally agree.
	The acceleration of ageing starts to happen before we get old, and we must look at the public health opportunities to engage with and pre-empt some of the issues that we might face as we get older. That leads me on to keeping people out of care. The three biggest reasons for people
	going into care are dementia, incontinence and accidents, such as falls. Are we looking at those three factors in enough detail? This morning, on the radio, we heard about a drug that could help people to stay more able despite their dementia, and I hope that it will become more widely available.
	I said earlier that I had worked in the area of incontinence. It is one of the most easily managed conditions, so why is it not properly supported? Why are so many people referring their family members to residential care for that reason, when the condition can be addressed easily and extremely cheaply? We are not addressing the condition, and we need to look at it in a lot more detail to ensure that more people can keep their relatives at home. I also mentioned falls. Why do we wait until someone breaks their pelvis before going into their house to see whether they have a handrail, whether their lights are working or whether the ramp is in the right place? None of this is rocket science, folks. It is perfectly straightforward, and I do not understand why such interventions are not being made much earlier.
	We have a system that is broken, but we are not doing the necessary pre-emptive work. Instead, the system rewards acute services. It finds installing handrails or wet-rooms less thrilling than ambulances and broken hips. That makes no financial sense, and no human sense. The public know where the system is going wrong, and they can see that earlier intervention would make a difference to their loved ones. Many people have spoken about carers today, and we need to do as much as possible for them. They are at the heart of keeping people out of the care sector.
	If we re-engineer our care system, making prevention and pre-emption the gold standard, we must look at a re-engineered funding mechanism, too. I believe that there is a policy framework that is a little like the green deal: for those who support people out of care, there is a bonus and an incentive, rather than the current financial model that rewards hospitalisation and pays far too little for those in home support.
	I welcome the comments of hon. Members about how little care workers in homes are paid. My word, if we look at the value we get from that particular care intervention in comparison with extreme nurses in hospitals, we should start to understand that we have a very imbalanced system.
	In conclusion, if we have a vision for decent and dignified care, the public will enter into a contract with the Government. They might even do so more than the Government think; they might even pay more than we are currently asking them to contribute. However, they will do that only if they see a re-engineered system that places the foremost priority on delivering care—quality care—that they can trust, rely on and understand.

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friends the Members for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) made interesting points specifically about caring for carers, which is the issue I want to address, too. I have one specific policy suggestion for the Minister, on which I would be interested to hear his thoughts: we should seriously consider introducing a post-retirement carer’s allowance.
	It has always been the case in our society that no more than about a fifth of all the caring that goes on has been achieved by the state. In recent years, that fifth has expanded slightly to about a quarter, but if we were to try to pay via the state and taxation for all the caring in our society—whether it be for children, disabled relatives or the elderly—we would never raise enough in tax to be able to achieve it. For me, it has always seemed nonsense simply to look at the budgets and try to spend a bit more and a bit more. That will not be the solution in the longer term, particularly in an ageing society where the issue will crop up time and again.
	I applaud my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton and for South Thanet for focusing instead on the carers—the people who carry out the caring. There are currently about 1 million people in England alone who are aged over 65 yet are caring for a relative. A constituent wrote to tell me that he was disabled, that his wife was his carer and that they also had a disabled adult child for whom his wife had been the carer since the child was born. He told me that his wife, who had retired at 62, was not eligible for any carer’s allowance because she was drawing a state pension. She is trying to care 24/7 for a disabled husband and travelling at her own expense to care for an adult disabled child. That is simply impossible, and he told me that it was inevitable that the family would have to go to the local council and call for help. His wife will give up that caring role because she will not be able to cope—financially, let alone physically—with the stress of having to care for two people in her own family.
	If we turn that on its head and think about what happens with a carer’s allowance, we find that the carer gets £55.55 for 35 hours of care a week—£1.58 an hour in comparison with the national minimum wage of £5.59 an hour for an adult. Carers thus get an incredibly small sum of money. Looked at from the state’s perspective, it is an absolute bargain. If the person was not doing that caring for that kind of money, the state would be the default and have to pick up the pieces, as that is how things work in this country.
	What we should be looking at is how we can continue to benefit from the love and cherishing of family members in order to give the people being cared for a quality of life that is so much better. We all know that £1 spent in the home saves £4 in the NHS. How much more is £1 spent on a carer who knows and loves the person they are caring for worth than £1 spent on a carer who, perhaps, comes in periodically through the day and who may frequently be replaced by another carer? The outcomes for the person being cared for are so much better if they are cared for by someone who genuinely loves them.
	We should therefore seriously consider introducing a post-retirement carer's allowance that is available only to retired carers who continue to be the only carer for their loved one. That carer's allowance would cease on the day that they call on social care from social services or the local council. There will therefore be an incentive for people to continue to care for their loved ones, which is better for everybody. I absolutely take on board what my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton said about the need to provide a care package for the carers themselves, but the principle of enabling carers to continue to provide that support for as long as possible should not be overruled by the need to care for the carers.
	The Department for Work and Pensions has estimated that this year the cost of simply retaining the carer's allowance alongside the state pension would be about £950 million. What it did not take into account was the fact that there would be a commensurate reduction in the pension credit, and also the enormous potential reduction in the cost of providing social care. We might be paying a family loved one £1.53 or £1.58 an hour, but we would be paying an official carer £10 or £20 an hour, perhaps, to go in and look after that person—and in a far less assiduous way.
	The taxpayer, through Government aid, is simply not going to be able to foot the bill for all the care that will be needed in the future. We must find a way to support society, communities and carers, so that loved ones can continue to care for their own family members. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on this idea.

Sarah Wollaston: I have good news: people in their 40s and 50s are at the pinnacle of evolution, according to Dr Bainbridge writing in the New Scientist. I do not think my children would agree with that assessment, but they would agree that they feel rather outnumbered. This is a cause for celebration, however, and we should note it in this House: it is a good thing that we are all living longer—after all, the alternative is very unattractive indeed. A man who reaches the age of 65 can now expect on average to live a further 18 years, and a woman at 65 can expect to live even longer—to 85 and a half. We should welcome that on international women’s day. This is good news all round, therefore, but these extra years must be lived well. We should add to people’s years of life while also helping them live with independence and dignity.
	I have the privilege of serving on the Health Committee, and I have also had the privilege of working for 24 years on the front line in the NHS. I have therefore met many carers, and also many people who, sadly, are suffering from dementia. Many Members have commented on that topic however, so I will not discuss it further now.
	I want to focus on the Select Committee’s recommendations following our inquiry into social care. I acknowledge that, by 2014, an extra £2 billion a year will be spent on social care, and I welcome that investment. There is still an issue that needs to be addressed, however, and it transcends party politics.
	As the King’s Fund and the Dilnot commission have made clear, demand is outstripping supply—by 9% over the past four years—and the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services have stated that this underfunding is a long-term problem. According to the King’s Fund, the funding gap could be as high as £1.2 billion by 2014. Also, about 890,000 older people in social care may have a need that is not being met. As the Select Committee heard, some councils are tightening their eligibility criteria, so that people who perhaps would have been classed as having “substantial” needs are now being classed as having “moderate” needs. Other councils are setting a different benchmark, so they are funding only “substantial” needs, rather than both, as they might have done in the past. Obviously, the problem goes beyond the total spend. Government Members are taking a realistic attitude to our national debt, knowing that there are no blank cheques. However,
	we need to continue to increase our social care funding slightly, so that we can achieve what we want to achieve for our older people: dignity and independence.
	It will not matter how much we spend unless we change how we spend it. One thing the Dilnot commission examined well was how we divide our spending. We know that we spend £145 billion a year on older people in England, about half of which goes on benefits, such as pensions, housing-related benefits and pension credits. Some £50 billion is spent on the NHS but only £8 billion goes towards social care. That balance is not right. If we were designing the system from scratch, we would not set the funding in that way. That structural problem has been recognised for decades, but the White Paper and the changes in the Health and Social Care Bill give us an opportunity to address it. I therefore ask the Minister to rebalance things by examining the Select Committee’s key recommendation, which was to deliver integrated health and social care, with a single commissioner or a commissioning body, and to drive this joint working by also looking at pooling budgets.
	Some wonderful examples of that approach are available, as we found when the Select Committee visited Blackburn with Darwen PCT and Torbay Care Trust. I am fortunate that the Torbay Care Trust covers much of my constituency, because it achieves real results: low average lengths of stay; rapid access to equipment, thus avoiding hospital admissions; and getting people out of hospital much quicker. The key to all that is recognising that keeping people independent in their own homes, rather than admitting them to expensive hospitals, saves money. As has been said, for every £1 we spend on integration, we save £2.65 for the health service—as is so often the case, the best care turns out to be the cheapest care.
	I was disappointed to hear the Minister describe the care trust model as an experiment that never really got “out of the lab”. I urge him to get back into the laboratory with care trusts, because this is good practice. They bring a positive culture on joint working, pooled budgets and putting patients first. In Torbay, they have considered an imaginary patient, “Mrs Smith”, who has complex care needs and at every stage in the system they have designed everything around her, putting her needs first. That sometimes means sweeping away the silo working that we so often see. In many parts of the country, six different phone calls have to be made when dealing with a patient with complex care needs, and there are endless delays and frustrations, and repeated assessments, but Torbay has a care co-ordinator with a single number. We need to adopt that kind of working.

Paul Burstow: The hon. Lady is making an important set of contributions to this debate. That comment I made during the Health Committee’s evidence session was very much born out of frustration—it is frustration that my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) has echoed. How we spread best practice and get it adopted is one of the key challenges in delivering more integrated health and social care, and it is one of the things we are going to address in the White Paper. The Select Committee’s contribution to that process has been very helpful.

Sarah Wollaston: I thank the Minister for that encouraging response. I am glad to hear him say that rolling out good practice is key to this. I ask him to consider the
	Select Committee’s recommendation that the way that we can best drive that is by having a single outcomes framework. We are currently going to have outcomes frameworks for housing, for social care and for elderly people in health. Bringing those together would drive proper integration. Having a single commissioner for all these services would bring people together. If we do not have that, we risk carrying on as we are. When budgets are stretched, as we all accept they are, there is more of a tendency for organisations to say, “This money is for social care”; where spending the money would perhaps improve only health outcomes, there is less of an incentive to spend it. We should consider pooling the budgets, and having a single commissioner and a single outcomes framework. I am not saying that we should be too rigid in imposing how that is done, but we should set out what we expect. In addition, we should recognise how important housing is in this area. We should not leave it out of the equation when we consider how we help older people to continue to live independently.

Damian Collins: Would my hon. Friend include more informal forms of care, such as referring patients who are socially excluded to local walking or singing groups where they can participate and be with other people? There are some good models of that in my constituency.

Sarah Wollaston: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and agree with him absolutely. In the past couple of weeks, I have visited an organisation called Brixham Does Care in my constituency as well as another, Saltstone Caring, and I am sure that we all have wonderful examples in our constituencies, sometimes involving social enterprises and sometimes charities.
	I feel that one of the most encouraging things about the Health and Social Care Bill is that it will give commissioners the flexibility to draw in partners, because there is sometimes an assumption that only the NHS can deliver good care. The NHS remains at the core of good care and I trust that GPs will have the sense to commission integrated care pathways that do not fragment local services. I do not know a single GP who wants to privatise the health service or social care; GPs want the flexibility to bring all these elements together while having the good sense to protect their much valued local NHS services. I am very encouraged to see that there will now be a focus on integration, but I ask the Minister specifically to consider integrated care with a single commissioner, because the Committee felt that that would be the most encouraging way forward.
	In conclusion, let me return to Dr Bainbridge in the New Scientist, who describes middle-aged people as
	“the most impressive things yet produced by natural selection.”
	The Minister fits that bill perfectly and has a fantastic opportunity to achieve what we have been trying to achieve for 50 years: an integrated health and social care model. It can be done and I hope that he will look at the Health Committee’s report and make it a reality.

Guy Opperman: Well, they make them out of strong stuff in the west country. It is a joy to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes
	(Dr Wollaston), who brings great medical and intellectual wisdom to the debate, and I am honoured to be speaking in a debate introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton).
	I would be humble in my approach to this matter, but I would like to think we are united in the sense that Members from all parties have a common desire to tackle what is probably the most intractable problem we face. There is in effect no dispute about what we want from social care: we want independence, dignity and privacy for those who are being cared for, and the people who provide the care need patience and humour and to know their individual clients and their family members. The question is how we develop a social care network that treats people as people within the confines of a budget that is ever changing and ever more difficult to reconcile.
	How a society treats the vulnerable is surely the best definition of that society. I came into this House in my 40s, I am delighted to say, and I thought I was in the prime of my life, until last year when I became unwell. I am probably the only person in the Chamber at this moment who has needed social care. It was a great effort to become better researched in preparing for this debate, obviously, but becoming ill last April gave me a great deal of knowledge and insight from a personal standpoint about the degree to which such care is necessary and about the great service that is provided. Today’s debate is a wonderful opportunity to celebrate the great work done by individual carers in the public and private sectors and, not least, the work done by families.
	I speak as an MP for the north-east, and there are shining examples of how the north-east leads the way in the provision of care to individuals. There is outstanding palliative care in my constituency through the Charlotte Straker palliative care teams in Corbridge. If I need to make a declaration it is that last summer I raised in excess of £3,000 for the charity Tynedale Hospice at Home, which provides care in Hexham. All of us as MPs will go around individual care homes in our constituency. The Helen McArdle organisation does an amazing job across the north-east, including at its Acomb Court service in Hexham. I was lucky enough to be asked to present some prizes at Wentworth Grange in Riding Mill and it was noticeable that more than 35 awards were made to individual staff members because there was a great deal of ongoing training to improve the quality of individuals’ care. I could name many others throughout the constituency, including Wellburn House in Ovingham, but I will move on, given all the support there has been across the House, to talk about the White Paper.
	The White Paper on social care is coming this spring. I know that spring is drifting on, that there are pressures and that people are calculating what kind of spring it is going to be, but let me reassure the Minister. Last year, we all celebrated the Arab spring across the near and far east, which changed things. That Arab spring lasted quite a long time—virtually the entirety of last year—so we will not necessarily be critical of the Minister if the White Paper does not come within the technical confines of spring. Surely—I make a serious point—it is more important to get this right than to rush it. I accept that there have been a plethora of consultations and assessments over the past few years, but there is no doubt that the way we have approached this issue, on a cross-party
	basis with constructive attention to detail, is much more important than rushing something out that is not the right way forward. I welcome the fact that the White Paper is coming and I urge that we get it right and work on a cross-party basis.
	This issue, I regret to say, is not about funding. There will always be small issues about the way that individual local schemes and individual approaches are funded, but the issue we will decide in the House this year is not about funding from the state: it is far more about outcomes. How do we reform the system such that we have an outcomes framework that integrates all the services for particular individuals? I endorse entirely what my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth and for Totnes said about this. I hope that health and wellbeing boards can deliver a single commissioning process with a single outcomes framework whereby older people’s health, care and housing services in a particular area are integrated. That has never happened in the entire existence of the NHS or previously; it is a genuine aspiration. Less important than funding is attention to that detail because at the moment we have a patchwork of care.
	I am conscious of the time and eager for my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) to get in. We speak so much in the House that we are now the rear gunners of every debate—of democracy. It is a shame because we feel that we have much to contribute but we contribute so much that we are always the last to speak. I must not dispel any chance for the House to hear from the great man from South Swindon so I shall try to abbreviate my comments.
	I agree that the Dilnot proposals are correct but there has to be genuine understanding and we all need the ability to sell to our constituents what Dilnot means. The idea that Dilnot will not—I will not try that again—cost us in any way whatever is hard to grasp and hard to convey to our constituents. There are nettles that need grasping. Funding will be an issue, and a contribution from individuals will be unavoidable. If we do not accept that, there will be grave difficulties ahead.
	I welcome the fact the NHS budget is protected at present. Given all the difficulties, we should celebrate the choices that are being made and that extra money is being spent on social care. It concerns me, for example, that the Government spend eight times as much on cancer research as on dementia research. I welcome the extra money going to dementia patients, but more needs to be done, as many groups have made clear.
	I want to put one point to the Minister that I hope will assist. I tabled a question to the Department of Health and received the answer on 7 February. It was:
	“To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy that the influenza vaccine should be compulsory for all public and private sector care workers.”—[Official Report, 7 February 2012; Vol. 540, c. 199W.]
	I accept that certain people will want to retain the choice not to have the vaccination, which would be given only on the basis of informed consent, but it would be of great assistance to the vast majority of care workers. Vaccination would clearly cut the prevalence of infection and other problems, and the Government should lead the way. Some, for religious or other reasons, would not to want be vaccinated, and they should be exempted, but it would be a good move for the Department of Health in addressing what is clearly a problem of infection and of staffing when staff become ill themselves.
	I support public sector carers, who need to be valued just as much as any other public sector workers. They do a difficult, messy and not always entertaining job. They are the unsung heroes. We also need to support our family carers and recognise the services that they provide. We must ensure, as many have said, that there is a decent system of respite care because if the family carer cannot care there will be huge problems for the Department of Health and the NHS.
	With that, and allowing sufficient time for the sage of Swindon, I will sit down.

Robert Buckland: I do not know whether I should thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) for that warm-up act. I know my place, and I am more than happy to take part in this interesting and varied debate.
	There is no doubt that the facts that face us all as parliamentarians are pretty stark. We know that 11 million people alive today will live to be 100 and that the population who are over 65 is projected to grow by 50% over the next 20 years. The expected number of working age adults with a learning disability will rise by about 30% over the same period. The hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) reminded us that we should celebrate the fact that we are all living longer rather than being a permanent Jeremiah figure when it comes to these statistics. However, they do pose us quite a stark challenge.
	Much has rightly been said today about the army of carers. I add my voice to that chorus of opinion about the invaluable work they do. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) estimated that their work saves our economy £119 billion a year. I support the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) in respect of carers allowance for people post retirement. It is a sensible and thoroughly appropriate point to make in this debate, bearing in mind the need to create an incentive to care for people at home.
	Many hon. Members have mentioned local carers centres. I pray in aid my local centre, the Swindon carers centre, which provides an excellent support service for carers, many of whom are young people still at school caring for an adult relative. It provides a focus and brings people together in the way that has been described and organises carers days in my constituency in which I and others take part. The messages we get from those events are messages not just of emotion, but of hard facts about the reality of life for carers on the ground. Frankly, they are the greatest experts on the people they care for, which is why they must be involved as service users in developing the services on which they rely. Carers are a huge resource, as we have heard, and must be an important part of the service.
	Two key principles underlie the reform of social care: first, transparency—I have already mentioned the need for carers to have knowledge of and access to local services—and the way we track national funding and how it is spent locally; and secondly, predictability and reliability for those who need care and their families. They need to know that they can work within the system and rely upon it in the long term.
	We have heard a lot today about care for the elderly, and I support the observations made by hon. Friends and Opposition Members. Rather like the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir Alan Meale), I want to focus on
	those with learning disabilities. I am grateful to him for raising the issue of autism, which is rather close to my heart, as I think most Members will know, as I chair the all-party group on autism. Before dealing with the issue, it is right that I emphasise the importance of advocacy for people with learning disabilities.
	There are many independent charities and voluntary organisations across the country that provide a voice for adults with learning disabilities. In my constituency the Swindon Advocacy Movement, which receives sustainable funding from the local authority, works hard on that philosophy. It draws in people in with learning disabilities so that they can be part of the planning for the service, which enables them to speak for themselves, because advocacy is not just about people like us talking for people like them; it is about enabling those people to do it themselves. I know that the hon. Member for Mansfield and I agree on that point, because I raised it when I intervened on him earlier. What we want to see is a service that enables people with learning disabilities to stand on their own two feet as much as possible and to play a full and active part in our society. That is why I believe passionately in local advocacy, which will help us see an end to the Winterbourne Views of our society and the betrayal of all the principles we believe in become very much a thing of the past.
	We also heard about overarching frameworks within which care services should be developed, and I want to thank my hon. Friend the Minister publicly for following my advice, and that of many others, by referring the quality standard for care of adults with autism to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. He knows that I and others have been working on that issue for some time. It was the subject of a 10-minute rule Bill I introduced last year. As an aside, I urge him to look at a quality standard for care for children with autism, because I strongly believe that it is the transition from childhood to adulthood that we are still getting so badly wrong in this country.
	I will pause for a moment and deal with the threshold into adult social care and how we need to plan adequately for that while the person is still young so that adult social services are working hand in glove with children’s services. In particular, when we develop our policy on special educational needs—I know that this is not the responsibility of the Minister’s Department, but it is a point that should be made—we must ensure that the new care, health and education plans go up to the age of 25. It is absolutely vital that we stick to that proposal, which was set out so helpfully in the special educational needs Green Paper, so that the threshold issue can be dealt with properly and there can be proper and adequate further education provision for young adults. There is a dearth of provision for young adults between the ages of 18 and 25, particularly those with autism and related conditions. It is in those seven key years of life that adult social care often fails and when we do not address issues of education for young adults with autism. Ambitious about Autism’s “Finished at School” campaign, which I had the privilege of launching in Parliament a few months ago, calls for that extension of provision.
	I have referred to the key principles that underlie the Law Commission’s report on adult social care that was published last year, which we all know about. There
	needs to be a single duty on authorities to meet eligible needs, a duty for carers assessments to be undertaken and—something that we have perhaps not touched on in this debate—a duty for adult protection cases to be investigated by local authorities or other agencies. We are getting child protection largely right, but let us not forget vulnerable adults, whether they be elderly people or people with learning disabilities. To return to the Winterbourne View scenario, there needs to be a proper mechanism by which we investigate cases in which the welfare and safety of vulnerable adults has been called into question.
	It has been a pleasure to take part in this debate. It was particularly reassuring to receive a clean bill of health from my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes. Dare I say that I am in the same age group as her? I will leave the Chamber thoroughly reassured. Finally, if we do not address these issues, we will fail not only current generations, but the generations to come.

Sarah Newton: This has been an excellent debate in the breadth and depth of its contributions. We have seen the experience, passion and commitment of Members from all parts of the House.
	In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), with whom I work in the all-party parliamentary group on social care. The contributions have been wide-ranging. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler), the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir Alan Meale), my hon. Friends the Members for Southport (John Pugh) and for Banbury (Tony Baldry), the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for South Thanet (Laura Sandys), for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) and for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), and our famous rear gunners, my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Guy Opperman) and for South Swindon (Mr Buckland).
	There can be no doubt from this debate about the cross-party support for delivering a re-engineered care system for the people who need care and for our vital carers. The system needs to be shaped around the person who needs care and their carers. I wish the Government and Opposition teams good fortune in their vital work to negotiate a new system for providing and funding care, so that we can all be proud to have created a society that we all want to grow old in.
	Question put and agreed  to .
	Resolved ,
	That this House believes there is an urgent need to reform the current system of providing and paying for the care of adults in England and Wales; recognises that social care, unlike the NHS, has never been free at the point of need irrespective of income; notes the central role of informal carers in the provision of care; welcomes the Coalition Agreement pledge of reform and legislation; further welcomes the plans for better integration between adult social care services and the NHS; welcomes the extension of personal budgets; urges the Government to ensure that fairness is central to reform, including access to advice, advocacy, assessment of need, care services as well as funding options; recognises the need to break down the barriers to portability; and further urges the Government to publish its White Paper as soon as possible, and to bring forward legislation.

MAURITANIA (FISHING AGREEMENT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Michael Fabricant .)
	Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con): I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) who is responsible, by default, for me bringing this debate before the House. He visited Mauritania last year and following his excellent report, I conducted investigations into the fisheries partnership agreement between the EU and Mauritania. I am sure that many Members will agree that he has put great efforts into our relations with north Africa and the middle east. He has far greater expertise in this area than I. No one has done more to further Anglo-Mauritanian relations than he.
	The first EU fisheries agreement was with Senegal in 1979. The number of such agreements rose sharply in the 1980s, following the ratification of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea and with the accession of Spain and Portugal in 1986. Those countries brought with them a number of bilateral agreements with other countries, particularly in west Africa.
	The first fisheries agreement with Mauritania was in 1987, and it entered into force in December of that year. The current fisheries partnership agreement with Mauritania will end on 31 July 2012, and a new protocol was negotiated on 1 August 2008. The financial contribution is set at €86 million in year 1, reducing to €70 million in year 4; €11 million, increasing to €20 million, is to be used for national fisheries policy, with €1 million a year for—
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9( 3 )).
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Greg  Hands .)

Sheryll Murray: There will be €1 million a year to support the parc national du banc d’Arguin, a national park. Licence fees costing an estimated €15 million are paid by ship owners to Brussels. The agreement with Mauritania is by far the most expensive and important for member states such as Spain, which is already moving to negotiate a bilateral agreement if the EU negotiations fail.
	The fleet can be broken down into two sections, the industrial and the artisanal. The industrial fleet is made up of a variety of vessels targeting various stocks. A few Scottish and Irish vessels catch pelagic stocks—mackerel, horse mackerel, sardine and sardinella. Sardinella are bonier and larger than sardines, and are mainly sold to the African market. Those vessels pair trawl, and they are fitted with saltwater tanks to store the fish, similar to a vivier tank in a crabber. The catch is trans-shipped to factory ships, and one Norwegian factory ship in the area is called the Ocean Fresh.
	Factory ships and pair trawls are permitted by derogation from Mauritanian fisheries law. The sector is permitted a catch of 15,000 gross tonnes a month, to be averaged over the year. Dutch freezer trawlers catch pelagic stocks, and the catch is frozen on board. There are 17 licences, for a reference tonnage of 250,000 tonnes. There are 32 licences for 13,950 gross tonnes of cephalopods—species such as octopus and squid. Spain holds 24 of those
	licences and also catches tropical round fish and white fish, working in competition with the artisanal sector. Other licences are issued, mainly to Spain, for different fishing methods and species.
	The artisanal fleet comprises mainly pirogues, constructed sometimes from laid wooden planks but increasingly from aluminium. Those boats operate with an outboard motor, and many are crewed by Senegalese fishermen. The crews operate with only a satellite or mobile telephone for communication, and they often have no navigation lights on their vessel and no VHF radio.
	The Mauritanian Government have drawn up a development plan for the artisanal fisheries. The pirogues fish for cephalopods using pots or traps, and when shoals of tropical round fish, white fish and sardinella come close to the shore, the pirogues fish for them with nets. Most of the artisanal catch is landed locally in the port of Nouadhibou, where there is a quay.
	As was pointed out in the report produced following the visit by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham—

Daniel Kawczynski: Just honourable, not right honourable.

Sheryll Murray: My hon. Friend's report pointed out that landing facilities are sparse, with just one small factory that can take 100 tonnes of mixed pelagic fish. I know that he would be pleased to confirm that, but he is prevented from speaking on the matter due to his position as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister. His report makes the following observations:
	“The fish are either auctioned in open air for the local market or auctioned in the purpose built facility with chilled storage units to buyers that deal with European fish and seafood firms. The operation here was of a reasonably efficient standard, however there was no large scale refrigeration available, meaning the fish were left out in the 30 plus degree heat.
	There was one small room where a refrigerator from above was creating ice for use with some of the fish stocks, however the scale was not sufficient to deal with the volume of catches of different fish species, which were as a result liable to lose freshness and therefore value as a consequence.
	In addition to the lack of refrigeration, there was also an absence of any other automated processing of any kind.
	The port was littered with rudimentary stalls that ranged from people gutting and de-scaling fish, to making various broths and dishes with the catches. There were also basic sheds which sold various supplementary goods for the fish, as well as maintenance sheds for the boats and port workers.”
	The current EU fisheries partnership agreement contains several promises. Some have been honoured, but others have not. Annex IV of the current protocol makes specific promises for port facility improvements. First, on progress on the refurbishment of the port of Nouadhibou, I understand that some work is being carried out, with the contract awarded to a Spanish contractor. Secondly, progress was to be made on refurbishing and extending the non-industrial fishing port of Nouadhibou. Thirdly, a number of measures were to be carried out to bring the fish market into line with standards. Fourthly, progress on the creation of landing stages for non-industrial fisheries was promised. Finally, a number of wrecks were to be removed from the Nouadhibou area.
	Many shipwrecks have been removed, financed by the EU, and the contract was awarded to a Dutch contractor. However, I understand that there has been
	no progress on improving the artisanal side of the ports of Nouadhibou or Nouakchott. The three other landing piers to spread the artisanal sector more evenly along the coast have not been provided.
	The joint motion for a resolution by the European Parliament of 10 May 2011 confirms that. The preamble states,
	“whereas, owing to the scant development of the fisheries sector in Mauritania, including the lack of significant landing ports outside Nouadhibou, the country is being deprived of the added value it would obtain, if it were exploiting its fishery resources itself (including processing and sales)”.
	The resolution continues:
	“Believes that, as envisaged in Article 6(3) of the current protocol, the EU should support the fastest possible construction of adequate facilities for landing fish along Mauritania’s central and southern coastlines, including—but not limited to—Nouakchott, so that fish caught in Mauritanian waters can be landed at national ports rather than outside the country, as is often the case at present; believes that this will increase local fish consumption and support local employment”.
	Current talks between the EU and Mauritania collapsed last December according to Euronews, which reports that a negotiator from the west African country said that the two sides failed to make an arrangement regarding money. For far too long, EU bilateral agreements and the successor fisheries partnership agreements have failed both conservation and the local fisheries sector of the host nation.
	I urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to make representations to the European Commission and fisheries Ministers from other member states, calling for the inclusion of the European Parliament’s recommendation in any future FPA with Mauritania. That should include: delivery of all promised port facilities; a requirement to land all catches from EU vessels, including pelagic and cephalopod, in Mauritania; and support for the artisanal fleet, including education about fishing practice, management, safety equipment and marketing advice.
	Will my hon. Friend also investigate, with all parties at UK, EU and Mauritanian Government level, the possibility of helping create a sustainable, self-supporting fishing industry in Mauritania? That could be through the formation of a fish producer organisation or a non-governmental organisation similar to the Sea Fish Industry Authority. In the UK, both those organisations are funded by a levy. Such a levy would be easy to apply if all catches were landed in Mauritania. It would provide the financial means for marketing, management and safety training to the local industry among other things, and could allow Mauritanian fisheries to become self-supporting and sustainable, thereby eradicating the need to rely on handouts of aid from the EU or Government sources, and boosting the Mauritanian economy. Most importantly, it could provide the means for scientific data collection and ensure that those rich waters are not plundered by large third country vessels to a level where the fish stocks they contain fall below the safe biological limits. The EU has a responsibility to ensure that fisheries agreements do not harm nations such as Mauritania.
	In conclusion, I should like to describe disgraceful behaviour that has taken place off west Africa, as highlighted by the European Environmental Justice Foundation. Fish caught by pirate vessels were trans-shipped
	to a larger factory ship—the Seta—before being landed in Las Palmas. The EU confiscated the catch under the recent regulation concerning illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing. Some four months later, claiming a discrepancy in translation, the Spanish Government released the catch, allowing the pirates to sell it and receive the income. Will my hon. Friend the Minister investigate that matter with both the Commission and the Spanish Government?

Neil Parish: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) for allowing me to contribute to her Adjournment debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for his report highlighting the problems in Mauritania.
	I want to talk not only about what is happening in Mauritania, but about the agreements in principle. I spent 10 years in the European Parliament from 1999 to 2009 and voted against every agreement, because—quite simply—the EU should not be buying up the resources of west Africa or anywhere else, and taking fish from the mouths of those fishermen and families. Boats often run down and destroy local fishing boats. If we are to help those countries, we should buy fish from them and help them to build up their fishing and port industries.
	The agreements are absolutely morally wrong, and we should not use our taxpayers’ money or European taxpayers’ money for them. That money very often goes not to the people of west African countries, but to their various Governments of various types. I shall be reasonably diplomatic—for me—and say that not much of that money gets to the indigenous population. It more likely lands up in Swiss bank accounts. I am blunt about that, because we know how governance in such countries often takes place.
	The Minister is a great warrior, and I know he will go to Brussels and raise those points. It is time we stood up to be counted as a country within the EU and said enough is enough. One has only to go to Spain and see the amount of fish eaten there to see why they are so hungry for fish, but if Spain wants fish, it should buy them from those African countries, not plunder their waters at European taxpayers’ expense, which destroys the livelihoods of the fishermen and communities in those countries.
	I urge the Minister to take strong action. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall is an expert on fishing and was able to describe the species and types of fish being caught. Hundreds of thousands of tonnes of fish are being taken from Mauritania. It is completely and utterly indefensible.

Richard Benyon: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) both on requesting and on securing the debate, building on the expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). I should also acknowledge the powerful contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). I shall explain shortly why this debate comes at an opportune moment. It is important that we debate such issues not only in the
	House, but where it counts, in the European Union. I shall go on to explain the Government’s policy on the external dimension of the common fisheries policy.
	The future of the fisheries partnership agreement with Mauritania is important, as is the future of all EU fisheries partnership agreements with other countries. The EU spends around €120 million each year on fisheries partnership agreements with countries outside the EU in exchange for EU vessels being permitted to fish in their waters. That is a large amount of money, representing 15% of the total EU fisheries budget. I am determined that these agreements should provide value for money, support good governance and apply only where the exploitation of fish resources is sustainable.
	Over the past four years, the EU has paid €305 million to the Government of Mauritania so that its vessels can fish there. In total, the EU catch is about 300,000 tonnes of fish each year. Rather than it all being landed into the EU or Mauritania, much of it finds its way to other African countries, as my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall said. In fact, very little of the fish caught in Mauritanian waters by EU vessels is actually landed into Mauritania. In 2006, only 8% of the EU’s catch was landed in Mauritanian ports. In response, Mauritania insisted on the inclusion of a clause in the latest protocol stipulating that, if vessels did not land into Mauritania, they had to pay higher licence fees. That has encouraged some additional landings but even now they are only around 12% of the total.
	Vessel operators claim that they are unable to land into Mauritania because the conditions are simply not adequate for them to do so. In some cases, they say that to land into Mauritania could put the safety of the crew at risk, cause significant damage to the vessel and risk damage to the wider marine environment through oil spills. In 2011, the European Parliament issued a declaration that called on the EU to support the rapid construction of adequate facilities for landing fish into Mauritania. That would increase local consumption and support local employment—the kind of aims that a real partnership agreement should seek to achieve and, indeed, aims that are supposed to have been fulfilled in this agreement. The European Parliament also considers that more effective mechanisms must be in place to ensure that funds earmarked for development, and in particular for infrastructure improvements in the fisheries sector, are used properly. I entirely agree. We must be able to demonstrate that these public funds are being used for the purpose for which they were provided.
	An independent evaluation of the Mauritania agreement indicated that, although it was better than previous agreements, there were still substantial deficiencies. For example, it concluded that most stocks offered to the EU by Mauritania were either fully exploited or over-exploited. If the EU wishes to be regarded as a responsible fishing entity, it must only fish against stocks considered sustainable. The scientific advice must be more robust and then adhered to by both parties to the agreement. The EU should not be contributing to overfishing in the waters of other countries by vessels that are, to all intents and purposes, subsidised by our taxpayers.
	I am pleased to report that we are making progress. For example, all agreements now have to contain a clause allowing the EU to terminate them in the event of serious human rights concerns in the countries with which the agreements have been negotiated. I have also
	noted that the European Parliament has recently added its weight to the debate and called for money paid as compensation for access to fish stocks in Mauritania waters to be decoupled from financial support, so that reductions in fishing opportunities do not necessarily lead to reductions in financial aid.
	I want the proportion of funding for fisheries agreements that is paid for by vessel operators to be increased significantly so that public money is not used to subsidise EU vessels fishing in developing countries. In 2012, only 20% of the money given to Mauritania was contributed by vessel operators themselves. We must ensure that these agreements represent value for money to the EU taxpayer and the local populations, and that these subsidies do not work against precisely what we seek to achieve on the development of sustainable fisheries.
	We have been criticised for allowing vessels to operate around the globe that are no longer economically viable for fishing in EU waters. That criticism is well founded and we now need to take action to address it properly. I also want to ensure that, when these vessels fish under these agreements, they are subject to the same standards of control that apply to vessels fishing in EU waters. That means ensuring that a sufficient proportion of the funds under the agreements is spent on strengthening inspection and enforcement capability.
	In that regard, I note what my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall said about a factory ship landing in Las Palmas. We will certainly make inquiries with the appropriate authority to investigate that. What she described is a disgraceful situation—if it can be proved—and we will work hard to ensure that, where possible, such matters are decided.
	I should also report to the House that my discussions with other Fisheries Ministers from west African countries have shown me that what they require is a single point of contact with the Commission, so that if an EU-registered vessel is held and those concerned are arrested for malpractice of any kind, that information can be transferred to the Commission and appropriate licensing action can be taken by the EU. At the moment, that does not happen. We currently have a crazy situation, where a vessel can leave a port and just go out to sea, perhaps carrying on fishing illegally without the kind of sanction that should be applied by us, as the EU, from where it is licensed.
	I have already been pressing those points in a number of forums. Over the coming months, we will have a number of opportunities to tackle the issues and bring about real change that will improve the governance of the agreements, ultimately benefiting both the EU and—more importantly for this debate—the countries with which we have those agreements. That is why this debate is so timely. The first such opportunity falls in about 10 days or so, at the March Fisheries Council, where I will be discussing with fellow EU Fisheries Ministers the external dimension of the common fisheries policy, as part of the reform of the common fisheries policy to deal with fisheries partnership agreements. I can assure hon. Members that I will be maintaining the pressure and reflecting the mood of the House this evening.
	The UK’s position is clear. We want a common fisheries policy that promotes the genuinely sustainable use of fish stocks, wherever they are. We are seeking to ensure that fisheries partnership agreements are based on robust science, allowing EU vessels to fish only for
	stocks where a genuine surplus exists and providing value for money to the EU taxpayer. I want fisheries partnership agreements to place a higher financial burden on the vessel operators who benefit from them, and I want to see the same standards of control and enforcement as are currently applied in EU waters. I also want a mechanism that separates the money paid for access to fishing grounds from development aid, and provides a real benefit to the indigenous populations and fishing communities of the countries with which we have such agreements. Critically, any agreement must be subject to a rigorous assessment, to ensure that its sustainability is assured before, during and after its life cycle.
	I end by offering this assurance to my hon. Friend and the House. I will continue to argue strongly for improvements to both fisheries partnerships agreements under the current CFP and the future policy frameworks under a reformed CFP, for the benefit of taxpayers, developing countries and the fish stocks themselves. I would also say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton. He may not share the view that not all fisheries partnership agreements are wrong. However,
	if we can get this right and develop a sustainable fishery off a country’s coastline, so that the fish are caught sustainably and landed there, with value added to them by local fish processing businesses—perhaps with the support of aid from countries such as ours—and if those fish can then be sold on the world market, all that can benefit both the indigenous populations along those coastlines and the economic development of that country as a going concern, as well as helping with better governance and greater scientific understanding of what is happening in the seas around those coasts. That is what I am trying to achieve, by making a virtue out of what is, really, a black mark, in what has been the sorry history of the common fisheries policy, both at home and in its external dimension. I can assure the House that I am working hard with all those with an interest in the agreements, to ensure that we achieve real and meaningful improvements to the current framework of fisheries partnership agreements.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.